Can defining words in one way rather than another alter either the facts or the conclusions the facts will justify?

Sabina: ❌

Emile: ❓/ ❌

Sabina says no. Or rather, her general position is that the underlying truth and logical structure of an argument are unaffected by the way it's expressed.

Emile's position sidesteps this question. Emile isn't locked in to a "yes" or "no" stance here – their main point is that even if (for the sake of argument) expression doesn't affect an argument's soundness at all, expression can still make arguments bad.

Can a word be defined without taking into account its social and political connotations?

Sabina: ❓

Emile: ❓/ ✅

Neither speaker addresses this question directly, but there's some weak reason to believe Emile would say "sure, whatever" if asked. Sabina just talks about defining words "clearly" without offering any more detail on what that means (which is a bit ironic). Emile highlights the importance of social and political connotations, but treats those concepts as separate from a word's definition.

Is a sound argument in support of a given conclusion a better argument than any unsound argument for that same conclusion?

Sabina: ✅

Emile: ❓

Sabina definitely thinks "sound is good," so there's support for the idea that sound arguments are better than unsound arguments.

Emile thinks sound arguments can be either good or bad depending on how they're expressed, but we don't know how Emile feels about unsound arguments. It's quite possible that Emile thinks unsound arguments are the worst, then sound-but-poorly-expressed arguments are in the middle, then sound-and-well-expressed are the best. (In that scenario, Emile would answer "yes" to (C)'s question.)

Would it be a good policy to avoid using words that are likely to lead people either to misunderstand the claims being made or to reason badly about those claims?

Sabina: ❓

Emile: ❓

(D) is wrong because there's a difference between what makes a good argument and what makes a good policy. Sabina thinks expression doesn't affect how good an argument is, but they still might think that avoiding misleading claims is a good thing to do for other reasons. Emile thinks using misleading terms can make an argument bad, but doesn't comment on whether making bad arguments is a bad thing to do.

Can a factor that affects neither the truth of an argument's premises nor the logical relation between its premises and its conclusion cause an argument to be a bad one?

Sabina: ❌

Emile: ✅

Expression is the factor in question. Sabina thinks expression has no bearing on whether an argument is good or bad. Emile thinks that poor expression can take a sound argument and, without making it unsound, change it from good to bad.