I would also like to point out that your tautological argument on the phrase "current flow" is, actually, quite wrong. Yes, I will agree that the word "current" can be defined as "charge flow" - but after that, you have dropped the ball.
You are basing your argument on the appearance of the letters f-l-o-w next to each other. You pay no heed to their specific usage and basic grammar.
The clue as to what is going on here - linguistically - is based in the very definition you, yourself, have presented - that (electrical) "Current" is defined as "Charge flow".
In this context, "current" is a noun and, thus, it's definition must also be equivalent to a noun - otherwise it wouldn't be a definition. So "charge" and "flow" need to be taken as two inseparable halves of defining "current". Looking at either word in isolation does not even begin to communicate the concept of current. They must be considered as a single unit for the purpose of defining "current".
Now that we have a definition, let's use it....
We now look at electrical circuits and see charge moving around in mathematically describable ways. So we can talk about the current in each part of that circuit. But what happens when the mathematics say that there is no flow of charge in a particular section?
Conventionally, we say that the current is zero - but since your definition of current is immutably bound to the concept of "flow" being a real verb with all the powers of a verb on its own, the definition falls down. The term "current" has no meaning. We are simply looking at "charge". Try floating that into a beginners understanding and see them howl in anguish - or run for the hills.
I was going to include the alternative conventional phrase that "no current flows" in such a case - but that seemed too much of an assault on the definition.
Once we adopt the term "current" as a noun in its own right, we can then use verbs with it to convey useful information. You might object to the term "current flows", but I expect you would be OK with "current exists" yet, when it comes down to the key issue of communication, the basic concept is identical. The use of the term "current flows" is descriptive - it follows the fundamental concept of electrons moving along, usually in a confined corridor, just like water down a stream. The term "current exists" is far less descriptive and depends on a clear understanding of the definition of "current" before you can appreciate what is meant and only then can you look at applying it to the circuit. It's like going back to first principles every time you look at an instance of the subject matter. Sure, you'll get good at it after a while, but that's only if you stick with it.
As others have pointed out, the idea of teaching - especially beginners - is to condense out only that information which is necessary to give a functional understanding and is according to their ability. If the subject is physics, then by all means throw in quantum mechanics. If the subject is mechanical engineering, then by all means include the chemistry of corrosion - but no matter what the discipline, you cannot succeed in teaching if you spend inordinate amounts of time labouring over points that are, in the big picture, comparatively insignificant.
It is clear you are not a teacher.
Edit:
Having read the posts made whilst typing the above, I will repeat: It is clear you are not a teacher.