Not sure how many people share that "common definition". Most people I speak with day-to-day (who understands blockchain in the first place), would consider "programs stored on blockchain to run when conditions are met" as the most defining feature, and doesn't have to be turing complete for doing so.

Yes. I would have designed contracts as decision tables.[1] Those are not Turing-complete. They look more like spreadsheets. They have a finite number of cases and can be exhaustively tested.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_table

If you ask any engineer outside the BTC cult if bitcoin script and the EVM is comparable, they would say no.

Absolutely, Bitcoin smart contracts are different than Ethereum smart contracts. What's your point? Doesn't mean one has smart contracts and the other one doesn't.

Are you seriously going to grandstand whether the word "smart contract" can include non-turing-complete runtimes?

No, Bitcoin does not have smart contracts. It has a limited scripting environment that you can't do much with other than colored coins, and we've all seen how that's played out.

If they think that, they've been bamboozled by someone trying to sell them something: There is no useful smart contract that can't be expressed as statement in a total language. (as transactions that take an infinite or undecidable time to validate aren't useful)

Turing completeness is a complete red-hearing in this application space.