Do we have standard word definitions? Should we for critical words? e.g. ‘human’

Although linguistic and semantic issues rarely come into the forefront, at least for less controversial topics, when they do it becomes quite apparent that they are an enormous impediment to further discussion.

It would be sensible to have a, presumed, standard dictionary or criteria in place so that minor semantic or linguistic issues do not derail a valuable thread, or act as a psychological barrier to contributions in the first place due to the uncertainty.

e.g. Certain critical words usually cause intractable disagreements when debated, such as ‘human’, ‘justice’, ‘rights’, ‘free’, etc.

The other alternatives could be to limit discussion involving such terms, though that seems improbable, or to ignore it or something else...

Just as an example, the word ‘human’, which referring to an atleast partially tangible thing would be easier to nail down, has a few possibilities.

There’s the idea of an ‘anatomically modern human’ in science, which assigns individuals to at least an independently measurable, distinguishable, category. Implication being that a too large anatomical difference, interior or exterior, means a different category. I’m not sure how accepted that is.

There’s also the commonly, though not universally, accepted idea of a differentiation developing in the womb.

And there’s the almost universally accepted idea of a change to non-human status through disintegration or integration with non-human components.