Debates that hinge on the definition of a word are boring.

While questions like “Is water wet? or “Is a hot dog a sandwich?” can get a conversation rolling, not all conversations are worth having.

No one learns anything about each other from these discussions, and discussion is honestly too generous of a term to use.

While it’s tempting to debate about something with no real right answer or a topic with no real-world consequences, discussions are valuable because they invoke exploration.

But a debate that hinges on what a single word means, whether it’s “wet” or “sandwich,” leads everyone nowhere.

It might seem like an easy way to start a light-hearted, fun, casual conversation, but I promise you, it will waste everyone’s time and leave all participants feeling intellectually parched.

Not only are these icebreaker questions overused, but they don’t even break any ice — these surface-level questions are asked as if they are supposed to be philosophical or profound, but they don’t invoke critical thinking.

When applying for colleges, I was shocked to see “Is a hot dog a sandwich?” be an actual question for admittance at a prestigious university.  

What could an admissions committee possibly learn about me from my answer to this question? And would they not get tired of reading the same arguments over and over?

I have heard these conversations play out a million times, and the same arguments are said every time.

While definitions can shape our understanding of the world around us, and semantic arguments occasionally have value, I could not care less about whether water is wet.

Definitional debates don’t challenge our assumptions or introduce new ideas or perspectives. 

These conversations circle the same definitions without exploring the nuances of language or the world that language is used to represent.

Language is a tool for communication, but these types of debates lead to meandering and meaningless discussions that waste everyone’s time.

Etymology and linguistics can be fascinating and might even be relevant in answering these questions, but in my experience, these debates rarely lead people to think about the history of words or how language has changed over time.

At least questions like, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” can invoke critical thinking about the origin of life or existence.

“If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” might get people to think about the concept of perception.

Obsessing over definitions avoids complex and difficult conversations. It’s easier to argue about what a word means than to grapple with real-world issues or to venture into more metaphysical questions.

But if you’re struggling, instead of asking, “Is water wet?” I would suggest asking people about their interests or perspectives about literally anything else.

I admit my distaste for these debates might be just one reason why I’m not fun at parties, but I would die on this hill; these questions do nothing but stifle genuine curiosity.

Let’s move beyond the tyranny of the trivial and use language for its true purpose: to connect and share ideas that matter.