In science, this can be especially tricky as the names are usually just convenient labels for underlying concepts, like the word RED representing the color. No one would argue about that, WOULD THEY?
In many cases, the name is just a term used to label a phenomena until a better understanding is developed, like Dark Matter, and neutrinos and other topics. I've written a little on this before in regards to some Electric Universe claims (see On Magnetic Reconnection and "Discharges", On Dark Matter. II: An Exotic Hack?).
Sometimes the shorter name is adopted just to avoid long-winded descriptions when discussing a topic! It generally only causes a problem if one is metaphorically-impaired.
Rocket Racoon: "Metaphors go over his head."In the pre-1950s literature, the model of the universe based on the expanding FLRW metric (Wikipedia) was often referred to as the 'expanding universe' model. Fred Hoyle, who was an advocate of the competing "Steady State" cosmology (Wikipedia: Steady State Theory), used the term "Big Bang" in a 1949 BBC radio broadcast. It is suggested that Hoyle used it as a term of derision (Fred Hoyle, Wikipedia: Big Bang Etymology), but the name was so catchy that it was adopted in general use.
Drax the Destroyer: "NOTHING goes over my head!... My reflexes are too fast, I would catch it."
-- "Guardians of the Galaxy" (2014) (IMDB)
So, contrary to a claim I've received, the use of the term "Big Bang" does not require the process to be considered as an explosion.
It is not unusual that names initially meant as a term of derision ends up becoming the name adopted by supporters (Wikipedia: Reappropriation).
Back in the early 1990s, there was actually an attempt to rename the Big Bang. In the process, the comic strip "Calvin and Hobbes" had Calvin making an entertaining suggestion of renaming "Big Bang" to "Horrendous Space Kablooie" or HSK for short (Wikipedia: Calvin & Hobbes, Art & Academia, Horrendous Space Kablooie). It actually caught on at some level and I occasionally use it myself.
"Black Hole" is another term that gets bandied about, but it is certainly easier than saying "gravitationally completely collapsed object". It could also be considered analogous to a 'black box' where you don't actually find out what's inside. (Science News: 50 years later, it's hard to say who named black holes).
Oh, and why would anyone argue about the color red?
There is a psychology behind color perception and for various reasons, reds, oranges and yellows are regarded as 'warm' colors while violets, blues, and greens are regarded as 'cool' colors (Wikispaces: Color Wheel).
Yet from a spectral and energy perspective (Wikipedia), blue colors correspond to hotter temperatures than red colors. This disparity between perceptual and spectral concepts rears its head in scientific visualization, where there is occasionally a discussion/debate/argument over color choices when representing multi-wavelength astronomical data. Is it better to represent the data which corresponds to higher energy photons as red (a 'hot' color) or blue (a higher energy wavelength)?
I've not (yet?) encountered a crank advocating that our understanding of photons physics is wrong because red means hot, not blue, but it would not surprise me if someone was out there claiming it.