I don't want to be an attorney.
I think a debate starts with precise language so the reader can gauge intent honestly. After that semantics aren't as important, but there needs to be a foundation of accuracy in intent that's understood by both sides of the debate. I believe people who study law are often attracted to the order of things, maybe they have OCD, but if someone can just make a statement like "I don't think a woman can win" and it can be responded to as if someone said "A woman cannot win", then the debate has already failed. Sometimes disengenuous people do this, but sometimes it's an honest mistake that didn't need to happen if the language was more precise. Had someone said "In this day and age, it would be more difficult for a woman to win than for a man with the same platform because we haven't evolved as a society enough to overcome that", that would be hard to misconstrue. Maybe someone did say that and it was paraphrased into "a woman cannot win". When that happens, as it often does here, then the debate is basically over, unless the participants want to spend 2 or 3 pages haggling over initial intent.
There are many career fields that could benefit from more precise language. The problem is it becomes tedious after a bit, and the lay person won't even read it - but dumbing it down so the lay person can understand it or even wants to read it means contaminating with a higher probability of being misconstrued. We see that a lot here, on this forum - some intentional, some not.