You set the goalposts at “opposing genocide,” so that’s still the elephant in the metaphor. I can understand why you think someone might shift the meaning mid-discussion in order to “win,” but that’s not happening here.

There are two candidates in this presidential election who have a realistic chance of success. One has voiced support for a ceasefire as a step to a two-state solution and concern for Palestinian suffering. The other has expressed the belief that a ceasefire is an unreasonable constraint on Israel, and that a swift, decisive victory is the only solution. One has acknowledged the need for Palestinian self-determination, the other has bragged about figuratively burying Palestine. One has openly stated that they “respect the voice” of pro-Palestinian protestors, the other has signaled that political dissent by “enemies within” will be persecuted.

However, if we’ve reached the point where you’ve determined that you are sure you know what I’ll say, then this discussion has run its course. Language like that implies that you’re preparing for an argument that would very likely either start off circular or quickly regress to that state.