Clarity is also gained by using a broader term to frame the debate in the correct context, and the use of subsets within those broader terms for the sake of clarification. I've seen this done in countless debates, and it works fine. It's no different to using "Christian" in a broad sense, and specifying "latter-day saint" as a subset of Christian.1. Clarity is gained by the way I defined the term in post #62.
Except that it frames the debate inaccurately by proposing the debate as being between two belief systems separated by a space of neutrality, rather than by correctly addressing the issue as those who accept a claim vs. those who do not. It would be the same as petitioning courts to change the possible verdicts to "guilty" or "innocent". There is a reason why the null hypothesis (not guilty until demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty, as I like to put it) is useful for debate.2. There is no cost to defining the term as I did in post #62.
But it also comes at no cost if you simply use a broader term which you can then divide into sub-sections of belief. People have no issue doing this with all the various religious beliefs, sects and doctrines.3. Clarity is good when it comes at no cost.