Define "pet cause", I'm a random passerby. I happen to understand their argument as they intend it - rather than purposefully misrepresent it so that they are wrong.

:::Edit (also TL;DR)

This example doesn't match up because "Dogs are prone to heart conditions" would be the original argument, but I would need more context that was talking about Rottweilers and Dobermans to allow the meaning to be obvious, but the terminology used to be poor. My point here is to not get stuck on the words used - but the meaning intended behind them.

:::End Edit

Discussing the larger context when you've already delved into a specific context isn't merely nitpicking, it's intellectually dishonest. I'll give you a contrived example, albeit not an exact comparison of the current issue, to illustrate my point:

Argument: "Rottweilers and Dobermans are prone to heart conditions."

Counterargument: "Dogs are not prone to heart conditions!"

Well, the context has already been specified to a niche. Both statements are true but are now arguing what are fundamentally different things. One is talking about specific breeds (subsections) of the species (idea) "dog" while the other is talking about the species "dog".

It would be intellectually dishonest to argue about "dogs" when the person was arguing for "Rottweilers and Dobermans". Even if both belong to "dogs".

Gender/racial identity politics are both subsections of "identity politics". They had already delved into an argument/subsection regarding gender/racial identity politics, and then you went and argue about the broader concept of "identity politics". The issue is you do not want to actually argue against his points. You wanted to argue about his usage of "identity politics". That's intellectually dishonest.

Here's a better way to approach someone either misusing a term or using a broad term where a more specific term would suit their argument better:

"Identity politics is a broad term and could include 'free vs proprietary' ideals, which is the foundation of Open Source / FOSS. It sounds like you're arguing about 'gender politics'. I want to make sure we're on the same page."

They can then clarify that yes, they meant "gender politics" and they might even apologize for using a term that was too broad in meaning.

The point of a debate is to counter someone's arguments, which means you have to make some effort to see their arguments as how they were intended rather than how they were stated.

That means do not nitpick over trivialities and definitions. If you're unclear on a definition of a word they are using, have them clarify it. But to purposefully misunderstand and argue an entirely different concept is unfair to the other person. Especially if they don't recognize what you are doing. (So I'll repeat ad nauseam: intellectually dishonest behavior)

>I have no idea how to respond to this except to suggest you may just not be very good at finding sources before 2008?

"Sources" and "so many sources I could establish a well-stocked multi-floor library" are two different things. I'm not saying sources don't exist at all.