The "no true Scotsman" fallacy is about moving goalposts -- about changing the definition in the middle of the argument. You have to agree on a definition, and then you can argue about whether something fits.
That is a completely different issue from arguing about definitions themselves. We can indeed hold opinions on what constitutes a true Scotsman, and even argue about which of those opinions is correct -- so long as it's the subject of the conversation.
You can't change definitions in the middle of a discussion. But you can certainly hold, support, and defend the consistent opinion that something is not a REAL education. It's not the word "real" that makes something problem. It's changing your mind.
> "The "no true Scotsman" fallacy is about moving goalposts"
More specifically, NTS is moving the goalposts based on irrelevant criteria.
There are times when the goalposts are in the wrong spot, and it's appropriate to stop the main argument, take the time to get your definitions straight, and then move back to the main argument with appropriate goalposts. If you realize that two parties are using different definitions, it's completely appropriate to argue about which definition is correct (possibly "the correct usage for these purposes" rather than "universally correct") before returning to the larger argument.
That is a completely different issue from arguing about definitions themselves. We can indeed hold opinions on what constitutes a true Scotsman, and even argue about which of those opinions is correct -- so long as it's the subject of the conversation.
You can't change definitions in the middle of a discussion. But you can certainly hold, support, and defend the consistent opinion that something is not a REAL education. It's not the word "real" that makes something problem. It's changing your mind.