That's what "no it wasn't a Muslim ban" is saying. You can not have a rational discussion on the topic without first agreeing to the context of the words. I hope you understand the other side of the argument is just as correct and valid. Any subset of a group (5% of Muslims, a single McDonalds store) can still be referred to by the group moniker (Muslims, McDonalds) without it being a false statement. Hence "yes it was a ban on Muslims".

Both groups think the other side is being intentionally pedantic by refusing to accept their interpretation of "Muslim ban" which keeps every discussion on the topic in a permanent circle jerk instead of becoming a discussion on the merits, faults, and legality of the executive order.