Definition, Definition, Definition...

A key element to communication is using words in a universally defined manner. Verbal ambiguity (i.e. equivocation - a logical fallacy) detracts from productive discussions and leads to meaningless arguments. Equivocation is not often recognized because people tend to assume that the other person is using the word as they are (people also tend to assume their debate is substantive and not merely semantical).

An example of equivocation used in the Wikipedia article (linked above) is helpful in understanding the problem:

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

Sometimes reaching the "far side of complexity" is simply stopping an argument and ensuring that both parties are using terms similarly. In some instances, it will become apparent that both sides were arguing different issues. Nervous shuffling of feet and a sudden interest in weather might follow these discoveries, but perhaps next time the topic arises the discussion will be more fruitful.

Real world example:
Nick Clooney (yes he is George's dad) argues that for someone to think that their beliefs are the "right" set of beliefs is an intolerant stance (Tolerance Collides with Intolerance). Unfortunately, Mr. Clooney is not using the word tolerate correctly. He means (and should be using) the word "embrace." One can tolerate another point of view without agreeing with it, but one cannot embrace another point of view without agreeing with it. With that clarification, Mr. Clooney can have a much more productive discussion. He can argue that we should embrace all views and others can argue that we should only tolerate all views.