Just a word about "semantics"

Semantics is very, very important. If you're trying to make a reasonable argument, you need to know the meaning of both your own words and the opponent's. It's actually pretty stupid that, "oh, that's just semantics," has become a false catch-all for when someone doesn't understand the argument. Hell, the phrase itself, ironically, shows a lack of understanding of the meaning of the word semantics.

And while that doesn't mean there's always one strict definition for a term, what it does mean is that even before a discussion can be had both parties need to know the definition that's going to be used.

Take, for example, the word broken when discussing a champion. It's used several different ways. Some use it to mean unbalanced, or more specifically either underpowered or overpowered (most often, overpowered). But there are also those who stick to using one of those other words instead, to make the argument clearer from the onset, and instead only use broken when they mean that there are parts of the champion that are quite literally not functioning correctly. In that sense, several threads have been made explaining how Mordekaiser is broken because he has over 180 bugs.

Either way, though, it must be made clear what you're actually saying. And just as importantly, what you think you're responding to. If you go to such a thread that's saying Mordekaiser is broken because of his bugs, it's totally irrelevant to bring up his win rate. Because "overpowered" isn't the definition of broken being used in the discussion.

This was just an example, as the discussion that prompted this wasn't about Mordekaiser. But I felt like I needed to type it out, because it's quite frustrating when someone refuses to respond with a relevant argument even after you explain what you mean.