So you defined your own idiosyncratic version of "moving the goalposts" and used it to rebut his argument, with a condescending "you understand that's how science works, right?"--instead of being honest that it is you who are changing the definition, and not his failure to understand anything.
I don't see how that's any better.
He rebutted the argument about moving the goalposts by moving the goalposts. It’s better by dint of sheer bravado.
You got me - I've been rumbled.
Actually, I'm really an LLM and this whole thing was a clever bluff.
How were any of us meant to know that you were using your own personal and undisclosed definition of a well-established phrase?