Using a kafkatrap against an opponent you can't beat in debate when they have just pointed out the tactic is probably ill advised; perhaps try something else; Ad hominem or motte and bailey for example.
"Kafkatrap" is a meaningless term, beyond "stop calling me a racist just for saying racist things".
Acting like it's an accepted logical fallacy is ridiculous. It's a term ESR made up because people kept rightly calling him a sexist and racist and he didn't like it and threw a tantrum.
Well lets see... oh that's odd, that meaningless term appears to have a real meaning https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Kafka_Trap . Now why would you be willing to lie about that?
Seems it's a perfectly accepted logical fallacy; and the only people who deny it are the sjw crowd largely because it is such a favoured tactic within their ranks.
Yes those are dictionary's for definitions of words not a repository of debate tactics; if you'd checked you'd also notice that there's no entry for "motte and bailey falacy", "Appeal to Ignorance" or "appeal to authority"; funnily enough it doesnt prevent those existing either.
Well yes if you purely limit yourself to a single college of liberal arts list of definitions then you won't, however search engines are your friend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
And desperately clinging to any page-not-found of whatever website you can find to display it isn't exactly the most secure display of debate.
Acting like it's an accepted logical fallacy is ridiculous. It's a term ESR made up because people kept rightly calling him a sexist and racist and he didn't like it and threw a tantrum.