Sorry to be logomachic about your folk etymology, but in fact the Greek logos component of the word logomachy comes from the 3rd Century BC word Sciologos, coined by Elronius Elrayimus, the Roman general who spoke Greek.Marx, Lenin and Stalin all struggled with dialectics. They started out trying to understand logic that included mysticism as a variable but found that to be too abstract for class revolution doctrine and evolved into materialism but by the 1900s physics started breaking down the physical universe to the point where it was about as abstract as mysticism so what became important to them was what was observable but that is again dependent on perception and now they are pretty much back to mysticism again with everything being relative and subject to reinterpretation while still pushing materialism. I think they lost the plot because they were never really interested about logic - they were interested in forming revolutionary doctrine. Again the problem is motivation and self-interest. That is probably the biggest variable
I think if anyone is going to have a sensible debate they need to be willing to agree on the parameters of the specific issue without getting too abstract. Obviously if one's position is not logical or the ramifications are harmful or need to be obscured then they will be unwilling to agree on parameters to that degree. That is how I perceive much of the debate about Scientology. So much of what constitutes Scientology is not provable or even observable but the net harm it causes is, so one side must avoid anything that disproves Scientology or proves it's harm. That will be the side that is most dependent on deflective rhetoric, blame and division. I have noticed that much of Alanzo's premises depend upon logomachy or getting bogged down in arguments about words instead of things that can be agreed to be observable.
The whole agenda to stop calling Scientology a cult and to characterize critics as the cultists is basically logomachy. If Scientology funded a study to replace fair gaming or gaslighting as it applies to minority religions in the vernacular it would probably be something fancy and devoid of any derogatory meaning like "Perception Inversion" and ironically if you don't go along with the study and the new term you are still gaslighting and ignorant for not respecting the study. So the underlying motivation is really about deflecting and redirecting criticism and not reaching a logical premise or to make it impossible to conduct a sensible conversation about the subject in general.
Hubbard not only redefined words and created new words but he created a contextual bubble that made all words conform to Scientology's interests. That in itself is a special kind of indoctrination AND training. I would expect Scientologists to naturally gravitate to and depend upon logomachy as a basis for debate.
lo·gom·a·chy | \ lō-ˈgä-mə-kē
Definition of logomachy
1 : a dispute over or about words
2 : a controversy marked by verbiage
Did You Know?
It doesn't take much to start people arguing about words, but there's no quarrel about the origin of "logomachy." It comes from the Greek roots logos, meaning "word" or "speech," and machesthai, meaning "to fight," and it entered English in the mid-1500s. If you're a word enthusiast, you probably know that "logos" is the root of many English words ("monologue," "neologism," "logic," and most words ending in "-logy," for example), but what about other derivatives of "machesthai"? Actually, this is a tough one even for word whizzes. Only a few very rare English words come from "machesthai." Here are two of them: "heresimach" ("an active opponent of heresy and heretics") and "naumachia" ("an ancient Roman spectacle representing a naval battle").
First Known Use of logomachy
1569, in the meaning defined at sense 1
History and Etymology for logomachy
Greek logomachia, from log- + machesthai to fight