...to try to win what should be a nuanced debate by artful framing. gen.

[naiva]

Не могу что-то до конца понять вторую часть предложения, которую вынесла в тему.

To argue for one of these as unambiguously representing “freedom” without mentioning the other is to try to win what should be a nuanced debate by artful framing.

Доказывать, что только одно воплощает в себе "свободу", не упоминая при этом другое, означает попытаться выиграть.... не знаю, как-то понимаю, но внятно трудно выразить даже эту часть.

Спасибо заранее.

Ниже кусок контекста.

This is the title of a book by linguist George Lakoff, who describes how the battle between the conservative and progressive meanings of “freedom” is central to American politics. We must ask whether is it a more fundamental freedom for workers to be free to organize and bargain collectively, or for capitalists to be free to negotiate with individual workers as they see fit. To argue for one of these as unambiguously representing “freedom” without mentioning the other is to try to win what should be a nuanced debate by artful framing. Market outcomes depend not just on productivity, but also on bargaining power. A worker's Just Deserts presumably do not depend on whether he lives in a union-friendly regime, but his outcome depends enormously. Whichever outcome seems fair to you, the other cannot be, so a blanket assertion that “Free market outcomes are fair” falls apart; it is either incomplete or self-contradictory, depending on whether the intended meaning is some particular outcomes, which have been underspecified, or all free-market outcomes

[sabbatum]

Я, конечно, не профессионал в таких делах, но, может быть так:
Споры о том, чья "правда" является единственно верной, является упражнениями в искусстве полемики.

[sabbatum]

являЮтся

[naiva]

вот да, я примерно в этом смысле понимаю тоже, только менее внятно было)