The Political Compass is inaccurate and/or misleading

The political compass does not ascribe different meanings to any of the terms it uses to establish its dichotomies, it merely uses said terms to represent a designated piece (in this case economic or social) of their respective philosophies. This is not inaccurate or misleading, as the axis on which the terms are placed determines which elements of said philosophies are relevant. In an attempt to befuddle, my opponent has decided to obfuscate the issue by introducing another political compass into the equation. He has not justified why the political compass pertaining to this debate should need to be interchangeable with the compass he has introduced - and he won’t be able to. It is self-evidence (at least I thought it was) that the political compass establishes clear and accurate dichotomies for the scales it sets out to gauge. Rebuttals:1) “According to the political compass, Conservatives are Right Wing Authoritarians, National-Socialists are Left Wing Authoritarian, Progressives are Left Wing Libertarian, and (true) Libertarians are Right Wing Libertarian. The results are shifted slightly the left, in an attempt to create a semantic shift; Liberal Conservatives are not authoritarian, yet according to the political compass, they are; Populists are not Libertarian, yet according to the political compass, they are. The political compass is deceptive.”Once again, you are taking the terms out of context. If ‘authoritarian’ is used to denote authoritarianism on one front, it’s not proper to derive any other connotations other than what is explicitly implied. The political compass does not insinuate that conservatives are synonymous with authoritarian in all regards, rather it only implies conservatives have authoritarian views on social issues (as they do). The case is the same for the other cases my opponent posits. 2) “Con claims that the use of the terms “Left and Right” are not synonymous with “Left Wing and Right Wing”, but the Political Compass website claims they are; they just redefined left and right as an economic scale.”The terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ employed aren't synonymous with the vague 'left wing' or 'right wing', but rather with only economic views of the left and right wings. They are not redefined. It would be redundant for the compass to label the extremes of the spectrums as ‘economic left’ or ‘social libertarian’ as the axes on which the terms apply denote this already. 3) “Con did not rebut the Oxford dictionary. Con claims that the political compass focuses on the socioeconomic aspects of the Left and Right, and the sociocultural aspects of Authoritarian and Libertarian. This claim is false; I have already pointed out that economic collectivism is not inherently Left Wing. The political compass’s Authoritarian Right is just as authoritarian as their Libertarian Left. As such, the political compass engages in deception.”My opponent is using a straw man to unjustly smear the compass. The compass never mentions ‘left-wing,’ nor does it mention ‘collectivism.’ The term ‘left’ used by the compass is explicitly defined as only pertaining to economic issues, so it’s just untrue to accuse the compass of defining the ‘left-wing’ as anything, as it never entertains such a term. 4)“The political compass is attempting a semantic shift, in order to negatively equate conservatism with authoritarianism and positively associate progressivism with libertarianism. According to the political compass, Conservatism is just as authoritarian as Fascism, and Progressivism is just as Libertarian as (True) Libertarianism.”If the compass were merely equating the terms conservatism with authoritarianism, why would it find it necessary to have another axis? What purpose would it serve? My opponent is blanking out the obvious here, namely that the term the axis is on dictates what aspects of said philosophy come into play.