It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all. But very often they are regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in PhiloSophy. One might well wonder, of course, exactly what turns on the claim that a dispute is "genuine" (see GenuineDisputes?).
It is also sometimes held that, when a semantic dispute arises, the focus of the debate should switch from the original thesis to the meaning of the terms of which there are different definitions (understandings, concepts, etc.).
As a purely HypotheticalExample?, one disputant, call him "Tim," might maintain that the UnitedStates has the highest StandardOfLiving? (see [standard of living]) in history. Suppose Joshua maintains the precise contradictory of that claim. Being reasonable people, they agree on all relevant statistical results, but they disagree about the meaning of "StandardOfLiving?": Tim holds that PerCapitaIncome is the meaning of (or at least an infallible or direct indicator of) "standard of living," while Joshua disagrees with this. In this case, Tim and Joshua have (suffer, are engaging in) a semantic dispute.