Why do people insist on the specific definition of a word, and ignore the larger meaning of the statement?

There's lots of reasons to say convicted, primarily, we're not lawyers, we're using layman's english, and this isn't a court of law, it's the court of natural language.

"He's not convicted for rape, he was just found responsible for forcing his fingers into a girls vagina without her consent"

Donald Trump was **adjudicated**—not **convicted**—in E. Jean Carroll’s sexual abuse case because it was a **civil lawsuit**, not a criminal prosecution.

Trump was **adjudicated liable** in a civil court for sexual abuse and defamation, *meaning he was held responsible and required to pay damages*. He was not **convicted** of a crime, as no criminal charges were filed in this case.

So he did it. Which is what people who aren't lawyers mean when they say convicted. The same way as saying researching, isnt the same a scientific research.

"Losing Party", "Convicted", Adjudicated" - It's pedantic in the extreme.

Why do people think its acceptable to argue over these definitions, instead of saying, "Yes. That's fucked up. That makes me question his position as the most powerful man in the Government."