That's a very special kind of question: one that's almost entirely about definitions of words.

For Thomas Kuhn it's a an issue of different paradigms.

When we look at the questions of atoms then saying: "Atoms exist." likely means "Thinking of matter as being made up of atoms is a valuable paradigm."

Lavoiser came up with describing oxygen as a new element. In doing so he rejected the paradgim that chemistry should analyse principles like phlogiston but rather think of matter as being made up of atoms.

Calling oxygen dephlogisticated air is more than just an issue of calling it a different name. It's an issue at the heart of the conflict of two scientific paradigms.

Both the phlogiston theory and the oxygen theory successfully predict that if you put a glass over a candle the candle while go out. The oxygen theory says that it's because there no oxygen anymore in the air. The phlogiston theory says that it's because the air is full of phlogiston so that it can't take any more additional phlogiston.

Phlogiston chemistry was a huge improvement over the chemistry of the four elements which neither explained or predicted that the candle would go out.

Understanding different paradigms to look at an political issue is often an important part of having a political debate. It moves the issue beyond tribe A vs. tribe B. Of course you can have a tribe A vs. tribe B political discussion but often that's not the kind of political debate that I like to have.

In reality the kind of conclusions that parliaments draw from political debate are laws that fill hundreds of pages that specify all sorts of little details that happen to be important. If the GBS does policy documents specifying details and coming to a conclusion makes sense but I don't think that's a good goal for a discussion on a forum like Omnilibrium.