In that case, using the word 'criminal' as if it's at all relevant to the situation is 'debate drift'. It's a loaded word and its use as a label carries well known connotations. I'm not disputing the tautological definition, I'm disputing the implicatons of invoking it.
Put another way, you don't often hear Gandhi or Martin Luther King referred to as 'criminals', even if by definition it's the truth. There's a reason for that, and there's a reason why I'd tend to be pretty skeptical of someone who chose such a label for those men in conversation, technically factual though it may be.
That's not the way I read the original use of "criminal," but that's a legitimate argument to make. The thing to do would have been to say something like "I agree with you denotatively, but disagree with your connotations," and explain why. Not to fight debate drift with more debate drift.
Put another way, you don't often hear Gandhi or Martin Luther King referred to as 'criminals', even if by definition it's the truth. There's a reason for that, and there's a reason why I'd tend to be pretty skeptical of someone who chose such a label for those men in conversation, technically factual though it may be.