What definitions are
Some words like ten or kilometre have a single, precise definition. Others aren’t as well defined. Who is to say at what age a boy becomes a man or at what size a hill becomes a mountain? Is a table still a table if the legs are removed? These questions have no definite answers. Each word corresponds not to one, but many possible definitions, each with different levels of appropriateness depending on the context (1).
In a legal context, robbery may be defined by the wording in a statute, but in a more casual context it may simply be defined as “a deprivation of possessions by use of force”. This later definition, however, would include taxes when payment compelled under threat of jail. In general usage, robbery does not include taxation, so excluding legal actions might lead to a better definition. However, this would allow a legal loophole to exclude an action from being classified as robbery. It seems that edge cases will prevent any general usage definition from being perfect (2).
What makes a good definition? Simply, one that allows meaning to be clearly conveyed. A definition requires a certain level of consensus within the context it will be used or else it will be uncertain which definition is being used. While practitioners of technical subjects are able to often obtain consensus for an exact definition, most definitions will lack consensus for edge cases. A good definition should also refer to a concept that is useful – for there is no point in being able to clearly convey that which no-one would ever say.
Application to arguments
As we have seen, definitions are complex and so arguing about the best definition of a word is rarely productive and should be avoided whenever possible. For example, if a Libertarian tried to argue with me that taxation is a form of robbery, then I would instead try to argue about whether morally equivalent to robbery and avoid the issue of defining robbery. This not only avoids many issues, but even if the other person were to show that the definition of robbery should technically include taxation, they would not prove it immoral. Then again, often one side is simply trying to win a definition argument for propaganda purposes. If you believe that the other person is using a word unfairly, argue about whether the definition is fair (or suggest a more accurate term), rather than arguing about the definition. For example, I would argue that calling taxation robbery isn’t fair, as taxation does have an altruistic purpose. On the other hand, it would consider it valid to note that force is used in both taxation and robbery and to ask what justifies that use of force.
Many paradoxes or incorrect arguments are based on conflating multiple concepts into a single word. For example, is someone free if they are forced to commit an action under the thread of violence? Clearly, they could have decided to ignore the threat so they are still free in the sense of having free will to determine their reactions to situations. On the other hand, they are not free in the sense of being free from unfair compulsion in their actions. The word free is probably best understood to describe a set of related concepts. These issues can be resolved by teasing out the various senses and, if necessary, creating terminology for these senses. Words such as free are notoriously hard to define and I do not think that it is always fair to impose the burden of providing a definition on someone before we admit the possibility that such a concept may exist.
Footnotes
(1) As well have having different definitions, most words also have different senses. For example, book can mean to reserve, as in to book tickets or it can refer to a printed or written literary work. Another example, is that men can be used to refer to mature human males, males as a whole or all humans. If we wanted to be more technically correct, we would say it is the senses that correspond to possible definitions, rather than words. This model works reasonably well, but is still not perfect. For example, is the legal definition of robbery a different sense of robbery from the common understanding, or is it the same sense, but a different context? The answer is both. The “mature human males” sense of men can be split into sub-senses such as “human males legally considered mature” or “human males culturally considered mature”. In a legal context, whenever the word men is used in a way that suggests the meaning “mature human males”, it is likely that the “human males legally considered mature” sub-sense is meant.
(2) Some words or terms can’t be well defined in absolute terms, but they can be well defined in terms of others. For example, a one-legged man can be well defined in terms of the concepts “leg” and “man”, while “leg” is ambiguous (what if the man has a partial amputation?), as is “man” (again, when does a boy become a man?)