WMN: t3_1yqbtv_t1_cfmwa21

[TITLE]

Arguing that something is "just semantics" is a cop out. CMV

[punge]

I hear this used quite often in discussions and I find it frustrating, to say the least. Most importantly, semantics is concerned with what is meant by our language, so saying that "we're just arguing semantics" is akin to saying "we're just arguing about meaning" which is exactly why the discussion is happening to begin with. Note that I'm not saying linguistic quibbling is relevant. I'm thinking more of how semantic arguments are central to meaningful discussions because they establish shared understandings. Am I being too anal about this? Is it okay that "just semantics" has taken on this conventional usage? Because right now it makes me want to pull my hair out. Someone please CMV. EDIT: If someone is just being overly picky about the language choices an argument makes, I think frivolous or nit-picky is a much better way to describe that than "just semantic".

[nintynineninjas]

It depends on the argument. Sometimes, you argue a point with someone where you both agree, but due to semantics you don't realize you're attacking for the same team. At this point, its "just semantics", and you call it off. Other times, semantics is the entire POINT of the discussion, and "just semantics" equates to the conversation itself, which also is a "just semantics" argument in and of itself. Perfect example: in another thread about "devils advocate your personal stance", I posited that "guns enhance the capability to kill, but murder is entirely the person's capability". Son of a bitch is still dead at the end of the day, but the difference between "murder" and "kill" can be self inclusive on one side. Thus partially just semantics.

[businessfirst27]

So if a girl says to a boy " I know you slept with that other girl?" and the boy replied "no I didn't" because he didn't actually sleep with her (eyes closed in altered consciousness) but he had sex with her, and he continued on by saying " I didn't sleep with her, I just had sex with her" ,besides him being the dumbest dude in the world for going down this particular road lol, would the girl be correct in saying "now we're just arguing semantics" ? He is answering based on the literal meaning of 'sleep" and she is using the metaphorical expression.

[FieryGreen]

I find that many, many arguments people are essentially arguing about nothing because they have different understanding of the meanings of words. So for any meaningful debate to take place the words really mean to be defined. Saying we're just arguing about semantics is a literal statement of whats going on.

[ophello]

In order for an argument to be cogent and for both sides to debate equally, terminology MUST be agreed on. To say that one is arguing semantics is to say that we don't agree on what certain words mean, which is a bit like aiming each others' thought processes at the wrong targets. You can't actually win an argument if you don't establish semantics first. Also, to say that we are arguing semantics would be a cop out only if neither side made any effort to clear up the disagreement and then continue the debate. Some people who don't understand semantics might use that as a cop out, but it is not the purpose of the statement.

[PQie]

sometimes it's relevant, because it's central to the debate and the point of disagreement. Like debating God, it needs to be defined well in order to argue. But other times, it's just nitpicking when everyone obviously understands a point. In the same debate, defining if a baby or an animal can be considered "atheist"is usually "just semantics"

[BlackHumor]

Usually, arguing about words is not as productive as arguing about meanings. If you argue, say, about whether a tree falling a forest makes a sound, that ends up reducing to an argument about whether a sound is a vibration in the air or a signal in the brain. The big problem with these disputes is that they have little explanatory value: both sides agree entirely on what the facts are, which means that unless the dispute is intended to be "what do people use 'sound' to mean?" there is no evidence that can resolve the dispute and no practical effect of the dispute. It's purely faffing about over the "true" meaning of a word despite the fact that the link between word and meaning is totally arbitrary. You might as well argue about whether "GIF" is pronounced with a g or a j sound. There's no right answer and there's no consequence to the debate.

[uuummmmm]

Depends on the circumstances doesn't it? I don't understand how you can just make a blanket statement like that and not qualify it at all. Obviously in some situations saying that "it's just semantics" could be a cop out, but in others it may be a justified statement. I feel like you are lacking an understanding of the word semantics itself, you should probably start there.

[noncommunicable]

I think it is extremely situational, as most individual aspects of debate are. You are correct in saying that often semantics are at the core of an argument. How can one argue what to do about poverty before we define what qualifies as poverty? It's just not doable. The problem arises when someone starts to use semantics to make an argument ever less constructive. I'll provide a few very real, very common examples. 1. If I say that poverty is a problem in America, and you attempt to define poverty as the kind of poverty you see in the most war-torn and least agriculturally viable regions in the world, you are using semantics to avoid the subject. While you are correct in saying those people are deeper in poverty than poor individuals in the US, that argument does make US children any less hungry, or make the homeless go away. Nobody who is homeless says, "Well, I don't have it as bad as South Sudan, so I better quit my bitching", and you know that. You just used your definition to attempt to steer the conversation toward foreign poverty aid efforts and avoid talking about the subject I raised. 2. If I make a point that the United States should not limit itself to a strictly traditional definition of marriage, and you start to argue that opening the door to "non-traditional" marriage will lead to much more repugnant forms of long-term relationships, with people marrying their pets and possessions and so forth, this arises from semantics. You have taken the vagueness of the term "non-traditional" and used it to your advantage to depict a ridiculous slippery slope concept. 3. Semantics are *very often* used by the media via inflammatory language. I am going to use a fake case for this to avoid any real arguments, but you'll probably be able to think of a couple real world examples. Let's say a controversial case occurs in which man A kills man B. Now, the case starts out stating this as a fact, but man A claims it was self defense, and the prosecution claims it was murder. The media, if they are leaning toward the side of man B, will use the definitions *and* connotations of words to their advantage. They will say "On Date X, man A KILLED man B with a tire iron in the street". They say he killed him because that is a fact, but they *imply* it was murder. They use *semantics* to avoid culpability in shaping the case. They can honestly say "nothing about that statement was untrue". If they should be leaning toward man A, they will say that "The prosecution has accused man A of murdering man B on date X." They take advantage of the legal definition of murder and the social definition of "kill" to portray the case as they want, without being incorrect. Semantics are all well and good until someone is using them as a means to obstruct an argument or obfuscate another matter.

[Vortesian]

That depends on your definition of "just."

[artthoumadbrother]

Could you give us an example of an argument that you would consider valid and worthwhile but you feel most people would consider worthless as a result of its 'semantic' quality?

[g_h_j]

Totally depends if it is actually semantics or not!

[killslash]

Late comment but I wanted to share a similar experience of it being used as a copout. A while back I saw a comment about SOPA on facebook and how this person though that it wasn't much to worry about because the unlikelihood that it would pass. (paraphrasing) Then someone else snapped at her and talked about how badly things would be if it passed, etc etc. Basically thought her statement, the "semantics" of it, was about saying it didn't matter if it passed at all because it's no big deal. When I made a comment trying to understand how this person missed the point completely there was a couple back and forth comments and it ended with something like "That's not what she said, and I'm not arguing semantics with someone over the internet". Snapping at someone on a misunderstanding of the semantics, and then using "semantics" as a means of dismissing an argument. Annoyed me greatly at the time.

[punge]

thanks, i was struggling to come up with a concrete example of what i meant. this is the kind of situation i have seen and was trying to address

[killslash]

Yeah, completely misunderstanding the semantics of something, then using that misunderstanding as a basis of your whole argument. When someone corrects them, "I'm not arguing semantics". -_-

[clarkdd]

[STA-CITE]>Most importantly, semantics is concerned with what is meant by our language, so saying that "we're just arguing semantics" is akin to saying "we're just arguing about meaning" which is exactly why the discussion is happening to begin with. [END-CITE]I think you have this exactly backwards. When you say we're just arguing semantics, what you're saying is "We agree upon the meaning...we're disputing the words." I can be exacting with regards to word choice; because I believe words have immense power. And yet I say frequently that words don't matter. It's the ideas carried in the words that matter. When I say "Bermdicker" to my wife, I don't have to explain. I don't have to use real words. She understands inherently that I've just seen a vanity plate that doesn't make sense. It's not a real word, yet my wife gets the idea. What I'm getting at is that, whereas words and proper usage are tools to communicate an idea, the idea doesn't care what words are used so long as it gets to the audience unchanged. Saying "that's just semantics" is to place all attention on the words at the expense of the idea.

[Cavemonster]

You're being frivolous and nit-picky. People use the term because it conveys something specific. Frivolous and nit-picky are more general terms they don't convey the same information. Not only that, but they're more pejorative about the character of the speaker. You may have personal experience with "arguing semantics" that makes you feel the same way about it, but broadly, as a phrase, it targets the argument while "frivolous and nit-picky" are more the language that points to character flaws. To communicate the same content, you might say "You're focusing on a frivolous point of language rather than the core of the issue" But what's the point of either using less specific, language more likely to be perceived as a personal judgement or more words to get the same idea across? You haven't really posted a good reason to make this switch.

[punge]

My main reason to make the switch is because this usage confuses the meaning of semantics. If we're confused already about the fact that semantics means meaning, I'm hardly surprised when other confusions abound. That's frivolous and that's semantic are the same length. EDIT: Apparently I responded while you were editing your response. You've point that frivolous and nit-picky might be more easily construed as character attacks changes my view that those are good replacements for "just semantics" so I'll give you a delta for that. But I still think we could come up with something better to replace the term. ∆ EDIT 2: Why not just say "You're missing my point"? This avoids the character attack problem and it avoids using semantics in a way that directly contradicts itself.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Cavemonster. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Cavemonster)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[Cavemonster]

I think you might be confused about the meaning of the word "semantics". As a field it is indeed about meaning in general, but used in context, it invokes these meanings. merriam-webster.com [STA-CITE]>the meanings of words and phrases in a particular context [END-CITE]Dictionary.com [STA-CITE]>the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics. [END-CITE]Thefreedictionary.com [STA-CITE]>The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics. [END-CITE] This use of the word semantics isn't against the meaning of the word, it's literally the dictionary example of one of the uses of the word. And in context there's no confusing it with a reference to the broader field of semantics. You can maybe make an argument that it would be a bad word to choose when talking to "you" since you seem to have some confusions about it, but the majority of people have no confusion over its use.

[punge]

As I've said in other places, it's in the specific context of saying "that's just semantics" dismissively that I take issue with. I'm not denying that there are plenty of contexts where this or similar phrases are appropriate. I gave somebody a delta specifically for pointing out one such example.

[Cavemonster]

I still don't see what your point here is."You're missing my point" would be just as dismissive and again, conveys far less information, so what exactly are you expecting an alternative to DO? I think it's clear from the other posters here and from the dictionary definitions that no one views the phrase as a dismissive attack on meaning itself.

[punge]

I've got to go now, but I'll try and find some examples where I have seen this used dismissively and put them up later.

[themcos]

I argued my point in a different thread of this post, but do you have an actual example of when someone said something was "just semantics" in an inappropriate or cop-out way?

[punge]

Admittedly, at the moment, no. If I do I'll post an example. Sorry to be lame like that...

[dv0rakftw]

To say "just semantics" is a person's way to say the bickering is pointless. Imagine two kids arguing "You broke my toy." "No, I just cracked it." To one kid the crack is an important flaw that wasn't there before but to the other kid it's still all in one piece so what's the big deal. Now in one case of a brand new favorite toy you might easily side with one kid but what if was old and beat up and already had multiple cracks? Depending on the situation if someone tells you it is semantics you probably need to shift the subject slightly to get them to care about something they don't or vice versa. Tell me if you have an example where replacing "semantics" with "I don't care" doesn't seem accurate to you. Obviously it's annoying when someone dismisses something you care about but it's nothing to pull your hair out over!

[ScalSaver]

The precision of the words is the precision of the ideas. You may have no word for your ideas but the contrary is impossible for me. I assume it's impossible for anybody.

[punge]

Can you add a little more? I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

[meltypeeps]

[STA-CITE]>Most importantly, semantics is concerned with what is meant by our language, so saying that "we're just arguing semantics" is akin to saying "we're just arguing about meaning" which is exactly why the discussion is happening to begin with. [END-CITE]I don't understand this. If I'm arguing with you about whether or not we should, let's say, dig a hole in my backyard, what has the meaning of the words involved got to do with whether or not the hole should be dug? What kind of argument are you talking about? Generally, we assume that the person we're talking to understands words in the way we intend them to. If I use a word, and what you take from it is different from what I intended you to, then that should be clarified and moved on. Arguing about what a word means is pointless, you just need to, as you say, establish a shared understanding. The easiest way to establish a shared understanding is to say "okay then, what do you mean by Sqazzle?" and just accepting the other person's definition for the sake of the argument. If you ask them what they mean by Squazzle and you say "No! That's not what it means at all!" then you've changed what's being argued about. This might be when a person legitimately says "now you're just arguing semantics." Let me try an example here. Let's imagine for a moment that I insisted to you that I owned a yeti. You say there's no such thing as a yeti. I show you my yeti, and it's a German Shepherd. You say "That's not a yeti! That's a dog!" At this point, the argument is no longer about whether or not I own a yeti , the argument is now about whether or not my German Shepherd is a yeti. We both agree that I own this creature, what we disagree on is what "yeti" means. Now it is a completely different argument. I might then dismiss the argument, because I was just trying to convince you that I had this animal, and I don't really care about what you call it.

[punge]

[STA-CITE]>If you ask them what they mean by Squazzle and you say "No! That's not what it means at all!" then you've changed what's being argued about. This might be when a person legitimately says "now you're just arguing semantics." [END-CITE]This is a great example. This is the first example I've seen where it seems conceivable to use the phrase "you're just arguing semantics" to justifiably dismiss a conversation. ∆

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/meltypeeps. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/meltypeeps)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[themcos]

I don't think its a cop out. It's not necessarily a conversation ender, but its important to understand what you're arguing about. If you *intend* to make a semantic argument, that could be interesting if you're actually raising concerns about how language is used, such as the practical and cultural impact of using certain words and definitions in certain ways. But often that's *not* what the people are *trying* to argue about. Usually people at least *think* they're arguing about the underlying ideas, not the words we use to describe them. But sometimes differing use of language just confuses the issue, and people think they're discussing underlying ideas, but are actually just confused about how the other person is using language. Arguing about whether "taxation is theft" is a good example of a silly debate. If you don't agree what "theft" means semantically, there's a good chance you won't agree on if its theft, even if you have *identical* beliefs about the morality of taxation. Having a discussion about the semantics of taxation / theft and having a discussion about the *morality* of taxation / theft are both valid, but very *different* discussions, and you can't intelligently discuss them unless you are clear about *which* discussion you're having. Here's another recent example where the OP awarded deltas after being convinced that the argument he was making was a semantic one http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ygoc1/i_feel_that_if_you_have_to_keep_an_animal_caged/ The OP felt like he had a controversial belief about caged vs uncaged animals, but really we all agree on *everything* except for the definition of the word "pet". Identifying the discussion as a purely semantic one is correct, and cut to the heart of the issue.

[punge]

Well said.particularly this part: [STA-CITE]>Having a discussion about the semantics of taxation / theft and having a discussion about the morality of taxation / theft are both valid, but very different discussions, and you can't intelligently discuss them unless you are clear about which discussion you're having. [END-CITE]From the thread you linked, someone wrote: [STA-CITE]>Not to be argumentative, but your entire topic is semantics. [END-CITE]The person is right that the issue is semantic. But what I'm talking about can be evidenced by this poster feeling like s/he needed to hedge his point by saying "not to be argumentative". Often, semantics are quite central to the conversation, and as you point out, it's difficult to get into other dimensions of a discussion if semantics aren't clearly established. Another way of getting at my point is that I take issue with saying an argument is **just** semantics, as if semantics are somehow a sideshow. Rather, it's foundational to the conversation. Am I making sense?

[themcos]

A little. You've maybe made a case that some people are rude or dismissive when "accusing" others of making a semantic argument, and I also think you may be being oversensitive about the word "just". I mean, in the thread there, the guy went out of his way to explicitly be polite about it, and it literally was *just* a semantic argument. I don't really understand why you feel there's an implication that its "a sideshow". I don't see what the issue is if the phrase is used correctly.

[punge]

There's no issue when it's used correctly. I'm trying to locate some examples of the use that bothers me, I see and hear it often but can't think of exactly where. In the example from that thread, I don't think it's treated as a sideshow. It's more of the dismissive/frustrated use that I wish people would use a different phrase to express.

[w41twh4t]

To say "just semantics" is a person's way to say the bickering is pointless. Imagine two kids arguing "You broke my toy." "No, I just cracked it." To one kid the crack is an important flaw that wasn't there before but to the other kid it's still all in one piece so what's the big deal. Now in one case of a brand new favorite toy you might easily side with one kid but what if was old and beat up and already had multiple cracks? Depending on the situation if someone tells you it is semantics you probably need to shift the subject slightly to get them to care about something they don't or vice versa. Tell me if you have an example where replacing "semantics" with "I don't care" doesn't seem accurate to you. Obviously it's annoying when someone dismisses something you care about but it's nothing to pull your hair out over!

[punge]

[STA-CITE]>To say "just semantics" is a person's way to say the bickering is pointless. [END-CITE]Yeah, this is a good example of how I often see it used, but the reason it annoys me is how blatantly it misuses the term semantics. If semantics means *meaning* than how can it mean *pointless*?

[w41twh4t]

If I say I will get back to you "in a sec" it doesn't mean a literal second. If I say I will get back to you "in a minute" it doesn't mean a literal minute. If I say I will get back to you "in a few minutes" most people would expect around 2 to 5 minutes and generally less than 15 or even 10. If I tell you I'll be back in a sec and return in 4 minutes and you say "Why didn't you say a few minutes instead" then yes I could have been more precise but if I have no reason for you to be anxiously waiting on the response then you should know "in a sec" wasn't literally and we are arguing semantics. Then suppose I return in 3 minutes instead, or a minute and a half. In many cases it's not completely absolutely entirely pointless but it's the equivalent of a rounding error. Obviously sometimes people will use it to try and avoid admitting they were wrong but I think more often people are just requesting not to get grief over something that doesn't really matter.

[Russian_Surrender]

Saying it is "just semantics" isn't a cop out, it is sometimes just a statement of fact. Person A argues that God doesn't exist because bad things happen, he isn't watching over us and protecting us, etc. Person B says, but if God doesn't exist, how was matter/energy created? Surely there is a force beyond our understanding that resulted in matter/energy existing. Person A says, "but that's not God. God controls our lives and wants us to do good". Person B says, that's not how I define God. I define God as a "force beyond our comprehension". Person A and Person B are arguing semantics. They define "God" differently. There's nothing wrong with that. It isn't a cop out. It is just a fact. When one person says "God" they mean one thing, with another person says "God" they mean another. Until they get to a point where they can agree upon what they are talking about (whether they end up calling it "God" or something else), no reasonable debate can be had.

[punge]

[STA-CITE]>Person A and Person B are arguing semantics. They define "God" differently. There's nothing wrong with that. [END-CITE]This is my point. There's nothing wrong with arguing semantics. I'll modify your example to show you what I'm thinking about: Person A argues that God doesn't exist because bad things happen, he isn't watching over us and protecting us, etc. Person B says, but if God doesn't exist, how was matter/energy created? Surely there is a force beyond our understanding that resulted in matter/energy existing. Person A says, "but that's not God. God controls our lives and wants us to do good". Person B says, that's not how I define God. I define God as a "force beyond our comprehension". **Person A responds, "Well now you're just arguing semantics."** As a way of dismissing the other person's view. That's what I mean by cop out.

[Russian_Surrender]

[STA-CITE]> That's what I mean by cop out. [END-CITE]See, and I don't think it is a cop out, I think it is just a fact. They *are* arguing semantics. Of course, we may just be arguing semantics as well. ;)

[punge]

Indeed we are. If they were just pointing it out that they're arguing semantics, I have no problem with it. That would be a little redundant but could also add some clarity. But when I see this phrase used, it's most often not used as simply an observation. I think it's used more out of frustration from feeling that the other person isn't getting my point, or feeling like the other person is just trying to degrade the conversation. If the other person really is doing that, that's kinda shitty, but the problem with what they're doing is not that it's "just semantic". It's in that kind of context that I'm hoping someone can help me feel less annoyed.

[anonymous123421]

[STA-CITE]>Most importantly, semantics is concerned with what is meant by our language, so saying that "we're just arguing semantics" is akin to saying "we're just arguing about meaning" which is exactly why the discussion is happening to begin with. [END-CITE]That's not what people mean when they are talking about a "semantic argument." When people use that term, they mean that rather than debating the merits of the point that the person was making, they are instead fixating on how it was phrased and the minor technicalities of what they were saying. At the right time, this is important and productive. But much of the time, and almost always in /r/changemyview, a semantic argument is a tool people use to distract from the *real* point.

[punge]

[STA-CITE]>That's not what people mean when they are talking about a "semantic argument." [END-CITE]I understand this. But I'm saying it is a misuse of the term semantics, and I think they should say something else like, your argument is just trying [STA-CITE]>to distract from the real point. [END-CITE]I'm looking for something that would convince me to accept that using the term semantics in a way that contradicts itself is justifiable.

[anonymous123421]

This is ironic, and I am not trying to be a jerk, but right now you are making a semantic argument. This might get confusing! Basically, the point is that calling out an argument that distracts from the point is a cop-out. Whether or not you call that "semantics" doesn't really matter.

[punge]

[STA-CITE]>Basically, the point is that calling out an argument that distracts from the point is a cop-out. [END-CITE]How is this a cop-out? [STA-CITE]>Whether or not you call that "semantics" doesn't really matter. [END-CITE]Okay, but why doesn't it really matter?

[anonymous123421]

[STA-CITE]>How is this a cop-out? [END-CITE]Your words, not mine. [STA-CITE]>Okay, but why doesn't it really matter? [END-CITE]Because *that's semantic!* What matters more than the label for your argument is the substance of it.

[punge]

Oh I see what you mean. Let me clarify. If an argument is really distracting from the point at hand, it's fine to point that out, but the phrase "you're just arguing semantics" isn't appropriate. It should be "you're distracting from the point." In other words, semantics does not mean frivolous distraction. [STA-CITE]>Because that's semantic! What matters more than the label for your argument is the substance of it. [END-CITE]I agree that the substance of an argument is what matters, but semantics are precisely the substance of an argument. In other words, semantics matter. So I dislike when the term is used derogatively. EDIT: My point is definitely semantic, but I'm saying that that is what makes it substantial.

[raserei0408]

[STA-CITE]> but the phrase "you're just arguing semantics" isn't appropriate. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]> but semantics are precisely the substance of an argument. [END-CITE]It seems to me like you're using the term "semantics" improperly, or at least restrictively. My understanding of semantics is that it has to do with extracting meaning from given words, etc. When someone says "you're arguing semantics," they usually mean that the argument stems from different interpretations of one or two particular words that were used. I feel that in these cases, the arguments are pretty unarguably "semantic." On the other hand, I'm not sure discussing the meaning of an argument as a whole really qualifies as being "semantic" because it's largely disconnected from the actual text and is related instead to the overarching idea behind the text.

[anonymous123421]

Fair enough. I agree with that-- it's just not really what your post implies.

[punge]

Just curious, what did you think my post implied?

[anonymous123421]

Basically it seemed that you were saying that if you're calling someone out for being picky about your words rather than your argument then you are copping out.

[punge]

Ah okay. No, I'm not saying being picky just to be picky is justifiable. Frivolous or nit-picky are better terms to describe that than "just semantics" I think. I'll add this to the OP.

[kabukistar]

[STA-CITE]> That's not what people mean when they are talking about a "semantic argument." [END-CITE]The funny thing is that this is a semantic argument in itself.

[Arthemax]

I believe that is appropriate when discussing semantics.