I experienced this the other day. The argument was about the rules for who can be US vice-president. One side was using the US constitution as the ultimate decider. The other side was using a French 14 hundred definition of who can be vice-president. This was in the US. These types of arguments are happening regularly. If people are picking their own rule book, how can we ever come to an agreement?
Yes, language is an issue. Unfortunately, and ironically in the context of the OP, the majority of issues worth discussing can't even agree on what the root problem is. Instead, the conversation market gets flooded with distractions, symptoms and/or false god narratives. From there it's off to the world of binary and confirmation bias.
Rinse. Repeat.
Meanwhile, the entities responsible and accountabile for the root problem(s) get a free pass.