Most men, most of the time, think in words and numbers. A fortunate few of us can sometimes think in entire concepts, seeing both the forest and the trees all at once. The words and numbers with which we use to think are, of course, symbols and are therefore subjective and probably unique to each of us. We usually calculate and rationalize in our rational minds using these symbols sequentially just as we write and speak. Communication is possible only if we agree by consensus on the meaning of the words and symbols that we are using to convey our thoughts. The English language unfortunately has many words that have a number of different meanings and connotations depending on the context in which they are being used. This makes precise communication free of ambiguity and misunderstanding extremely difficult if not impossible. This is why formal debates begin with the defining of terms so that we know that at least that we are talking about the same thing. Neither Logic nor Mathematics is not subjective. Their formal definitions and rules were invented precisely to prevent any chance of ambiguity or misunderstanding. They are therefore the best and universal tools with which we can use to reason. There are others such as the scientific method and the rules of formation of hypothesis, theory, law to name a few. There is some evidence that some women some of the time also think; however, if and when they actually do, they seem to think conceptually versus rationally and therefore our (men's) logic and rationality do not apply. They seem to arrive at their conclusions, sometimes though rarely the same as ours, by wholly different paths having started from wholly different places, merrily skipping over critical step in the process; but, I digress. After logic and mathematics in importance in reasoning comes semantics. We (men at least; it does not seem to hamper women at all) cannot debate, discuss or argue successfully or meaningfully if we do not agree to the meaning of the words or symbols we are using. Too often we (again men) argue to the death about something that a third party observer realizes is actually agreement in concept but using different words to say or describe the same thing; but, that neither party can agree on the meaning of the words that they are using. We are then in fact arguing semantics, which is meaningless, pointless and accomplishes nothing but raising tempers and levels of frustration however much fun and great a pastime it may be.