Why do so many politicians, gurus, and philosophers use such vague and woolly language? Well, it is because if you actually spell out the details of an argument, you make that argument easier to critique. This is why Bertrand Russell said that we should all use a method called logical atomism.
Logical atomism is when you take a complicated or vague sentence, break it down into smaller claims, and weigh the merit of those individual claims.
For example, suppose somebody says that "social media is destroying society." What does that actually mean? Is it all social media, or only certain platforms? Is it everybody, or a particular age group? And what does "destroy" mean? Does it destroy attention, friendships, democracy, or something else? The problem is that, until these sentences are broken down, you can read whatever you want into them. They are a kind of philosophical Rorschach blob.
You see this in relationships as well. If somebody says, "You don't care about me," does that mean all of the time or some of the time? Does "care" mean attention, affection, physical touch, monetary gifts, compliments, or whatever?
Of course, not every sentence can be reduced neatly, and even Russell later became less confident that analysis could reach an absolute final atomic floor. But the tool is still a useful one. If you find yourself in a heated argument going nowhere, break the claims down into observations, definitions, causal assumptions, and value judgments.
As the saying goes, "How do you eat an elephant? One mouthful at a time." But as Russell would put it, "How do you resolve an argument? One claim at a time."