Yes it is a semantic argument if you are using semantic in the proper term. It is not semantic in the sense that the word was used before, or how it is widely used, in that there is no real difference. That was my point and why I used the word semantic when I did.
By qualifications do you mean how many black belts I have and in what "styles" and who my uber great grand master was or is? If not, I hold a Menkyo Shidoin License issued by the Zen Nihon Sogobujutsu Renmei.
Ask any warrior who has returned from battle or the tens of thousand of people we have trained. The distinction is important.
Or it's a distinction everyone is already aware of and you're needlessly harping on it to sound macho. "Yo, OK so beating someone is one thing, but we train to KILL, really SQUEEZE THEM EYEBALLS OUT WITH YOUR THUMBS, THEN… THEN…then… I don'T KNOW CURBSTOMP THEM BRO."
There's some kind of internet law that the longer a conversation goes on with a hack martial artist, the more likely this is to get posted.
So, since it does not fit into your nice worldview of "martial arts" it is nonsense and I do not have real qualifications...please tell me then, what are real qualifications to speak as polemically as I do? Let the personal insults begin...I assume.
MI martialist, if you are just here to troll then your time will be short lived. They'll be no personal insults, but you know that as you've read the ToS when you signed up. Make a point, discuss it and all will be fine. Deviate from that path and your time here will be over. Your call. To everyone else, don't feed the trolls. You are subject to the same ToS.
Now we're adding "warrior" to the mix. *sigh* Why? Why is the distinction important? You're the wordsmith. The appeal to authority (warriors who have served and the sheer magnitude of your student base) doesn't actually answer the question. Don't take this as being called out. I just think you can do better. I hate semantic arguments. They're a cop out by otherwise intelligent debaters.