That is the trouble with rigid ideology, you have to make everything else flexible in order to fit within it. As we used to joke, who are you going to believe, comrade, your lying ears or me?
William Shakespeare was able to say far more with fewer words. Everytime we allow someone to use a word that is not accurate, we contribute to the confusion. I am being more of a stickler here because we (on this forum) do not challenge the use of words as often as we should, probably out of politeness. This thread began because the original post was unclear and several posters voiced clarification.
If I allow someone to call a chicken a duck, then I contributed to the confusion when duck and chicken are used interchangeably. Say what you mean, mean what you say.
Your first remark seems to contradict your last remark. To an extend I agree, if you try to explain something it is best to do so as "claire et distincte" as possible.
This is even more important if you work with a systematized structure like a computer. One word - one meaning will simplify working with it. A certain amount of rigidity or discipline will improve the system.
But this cannot be applied to philosophy. Words can and do have different meanings. This is also true in a dialogue or any kind of conversation. If you decide that a word can only have one meaning; "to manipulate means to nurture", "control is a legal requirement" then you create for yourself a doctrine or as you say rigid ideology.
It is in the dialogue itself that you figure out what the other person really means, whether you really understand what the other person is saying, whether you can follow his definitions, argumentation, conclusions.
For that we need a quality that is called listening or an open mind. Holding on to a doctrine is nothing but a closed door or a brick wall to hide behind.
To add to this there is also a "build up" or structure if you like in each dialogue. Not following that structure leads also to a lot of confusion. To give an example from my posts in this thread; if I state something like; "control and manipulation are a form of aggression" then that is a statement that you can agree with or not. But is also a definition. If you then respond with "I control and manipulate my children and the environment" then from that follows only one logical conclusion.
In such a case it would be wiser to come up with a question, like "what is the basis of your definition?" That is challenging the poster to come up with an explanation. That explanation will either clarify things or show a mistake in reasoning.
Jumping to conclusions will also contribute to confusion. And starting from the premiss that no matter what, you are always right or worse the other is wrong and therefor the enemy, will not only lead to confusion but to frustration and much animosity.