What is the term for changing the meaning of a key term during an argument?

The term for changing the meaning of a key term during an argument is equivocation. This occurs when a word or phrase is used ambiguously, allowing for different interpretations in different contexts. In a debate or argument, an individual might exploit the multiple meanings of a term to mislead or confuse the audience, changing the implications of their argument without clear justification.

For instance, if someone argues that "freedom" allows for unregulated actions but then uses "freedom" to suggest the necessity of rules in a different context, they are committing equivocation. This tactic can undermine the clarity and integrity of an argument, as it can lead to misunderstandings about the point being made and prevent a fair assessment of the logical consistency of the argument.

The other options refer to different concepts. Analogy involves comparing two different things to highlight similarities, redundancy refers to unnecessary repetition, and literal analogy is a type of analogy that does not involve figurative language. Each of these does not describe the act of shifting the meaning of a term within an argumentative context.