Saying that language is ill-defined dodges the issue. People do have beliefs and those beliefs are made up of language.

Maybe it's helpful to think about the question as checking aliefs. Which of the two resonates more? Which produces a bigger feeling of agreement?

Working with people who are in denial about their beliefs they have because they focus on a intellectual answer to such a question can be hard.

Agreement with such statements is not informed by factual or moral questions, but is a function of definitions of their terms and can't be evaluated when the terms remain undefined.

That's also not the point of the exercise. The exercise is about taking account for the beliefs that the reader holds