Is there a logical fallacy version of the "Mind Reading Illusion"?

There is a flaw in reasoning I have encountered often in arguments, particularly on social media. It's what Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) calls the "Mind Reading Illusion." A recent example will best illustrate what it is.

Me: We should legalize heroin in the United States. Portugal did it, and overdoses went from 185 per million overdoses to 3 per million. People who are sick need help, not a prison term.

My Adversary: Heroin has NOT been legalized in Portugal. It has been decriminalized. That's a far cry from legalization. Legalizing and normalizing the use of a substance for recreational use that is killing people around the world and creating one of the worst drug epidemics ever, makes no sense at all.

Me: I meant "decriminalize." I wasn't being precise with my language, sorry. I am aware of the Portugal case and some of the specifics. My main point was that they reduced overdoses by treating the matter like a medical issue and stopped sending people to prison for harming no one but themselves.

My Adversary: Nice try. You totally meant "legalize" and now you are trying to squirm out of it. You libertarians are always pushing to "legalize" drugs, and that has always meant the government should be out of it and all drugs should be completely legal.

Me: No, I meant "decriminalize." Look, here is a link to the Oxford thesaurus proving the two words are synonyms. My position on what to do about drugs is very nuanced. You are generalizing my argument that marijuana should be as legal as alcohol to all drugs, including hard drugs. I don't think heroin should be treated the same as marijuana, etc.

My Adversary: Nice try again. Look, here is a Wikipedia page explaining that "legalize" and "decriminalize" are two different things. And here is Ron Paul, one of your libertarian gurus, saying heroin should be completely legal. You totally meant "legalize" and are now lying to seem more reasonable.

Me: I give up. This argument is silly. You don't know what I was thinking when I used the word "legalize," and you don't have an accurate view of my thoughts and beliefs on this issue. Go away now.

Perhaps "Mind Reading Hallucination" would a better name for this. Anyway, my question: Is there a logical fallacy (or perhaps several) that describes this error in thinking?

Follow up question: Will my adversaries care if there is and I point it out to them? ;-)

Sounds like “being an asshole” fallacy. :). The adversary is not being charitable in his/her interaction with you and is clearly more interested in “winning” than understanding your position. I think if you did point this out (leave out the asshole part) you might get somewhere. Just the other day I was kind of being the a-hole, and when it was pointed out to me, I apologized and we moved forward. But I am very diplomatic:)