If the grandparent post is an adequate definition of "semantics," then I, personally, see no reason
not to make an argument based upon it. What's wrong with "arguing semantics" such that it's become a derogatory phrase? I mean, it's nothing to base a logical or moral or legal argument upon, but it's interesting in its own right on an philosophical level (similar to how "grammar nazi-ism" is interesting to linguists.)
Taking it a bit further, this phrase, and many others like it, belie the difference between a traditional chronological conversation, and the multithreaded conversation possible on the web. When you can branch off in different directions at the same time, without losing focus on any individual branch, there's no longer a reason to keep "on message" or "to the argument at hand"--both statements on- and off-topic can be expressed with equal exposure, and without anyone being distracted from one by the other.