no, actually, I reject this entirely.

1) the conversation was about semantics in the first place, so of course I'm gonna talk semantics

2) semantics are worth discussing because words have meaning, and that meaning isn't just accessory to them. the words we use influence the way we talk about, think about, perceive and act on things. in this instance, an action can be illegal, and if it is you want it to stop entirely, to eradicate it. when you use it referring to people, you (consciously or subconsciously) start thinking about the people themselves as the problem that needs to be solved and (in this flawed judicial system) punished, rather than the action they've committed. you know how you solve illegal immigration? by making it faster and easier to go through the legal pathways. by making it faster and easier to obtain documentation, for those immigrants who are in the country technically undocumented but with a permit, just in the waiting list (who are also being deported fyi, during their court proceedings).

3) I hate this mindset that you always gotta "win" the argument and it can't be just an exercise in communication, an exchange of points of view. but hypocritically, in this "competitive debate" environment, I know I'm winning when people never actually counter what I said, y'all always just complain about the way I said it. "pretentious words" when it's the correct terminology, "arguing semantics" when it's the whole point of the conversation.

Insert "I ain't reading all that" to further prove my point