I'm talking about a specific usage of language where the deceit is passive and consistent - an arguer might use an exaggerated word, or a word entirely incorrectly, to alter an audience's reception to an argument, but without actively maintaining the deceit of argument. Importantly, a person employing this technique is knowingly and intentionally being deceitful - it is not just a difference of opinion.
It is perhaps much easier to explain via example:
Arguer A: "We should no longer associate with Person C, as they screamed at us over this simple misunderstanding."
Arguer B: "Person C did not scream at us. I was present, and Person C only slightly raised their voice."
Arguer A: "That is just how I define the word 'screaming.' We don't need to associate with someone who will subject us to screaming conniptions over simple misunderstandings."
In a way, I am almost thinking of a dysphemism - in this case the word choice is used to intentionally increase the emotional impact of the word, even though it is understood to be a lie. If the use of exaggeration to alter the truth is confronted, the arguer might openly admit to the exaggeration, but then continue to use the exaggeration anyway because it will give the audience a certain emotional impression regardless of the deceit being laid bare.
A more insidious example might be:
Arguer A: "Person C is a felon, and can not be trusted to interact safely with the public if we employ them."
Arguer B: "Person C was convicted of possession of cannabis, and has no history of violent crimes."
Arguer A: "You're right, but person C is still a felon, and you can't trust felon criminals to respect people's safety."
Here the word "felon" is not an exaggeration, but is still being used deceptively to give listeners a certain impression about Person C, even though the arguer admits to the deception. By continuing to use the word, the truth of the matter is dulled by the emotional response the word inspires.