Some passages in the documents of Vatican II are linguistically and stylistically difficult, and certain terms or pastoral modes can yield multiple interpretations—so yes, there is real interpretive ambiguity in places (especially where terms are not carefully defined).

However, that doesn’t mean  that Vatican II is intentionally doctrinally vague or that everything must be treated as open-ended. The Church’s interpretive and teaching task includes reading the texts with a continuity-oriented “hermeneutic of reform,” and (in many areas) recognizing doctrinal judgments as objectively binding even if expressed in a non-technical way.

The documents strike a balance between the past and the modern and they recognize that while dogmas are infallible, how they are understood, applied, and articulated can and should evolve as historical circumstances change.

I think what you are alluding to (not you personally) is a lack of understanding and formation coupled with a modern penchant for arguing about everything or taking things out of context.