Oh come on... 

What the conversation arrived (and started) at was that Animus is more about the spirit of 'high-casual' justifying it's use, whereas I think it lacks a measurable definition and consider it redundant because of that. However by agreeing to disagree, it's accepted that people can and are allowed to hold those different perceptions (hint: the exact same conclusion dervish arrived at.) This demonstrates Animus isn't about 'winning' and in this context, I feel the phrase was more about getting to see eye to eye on another topic in the future. 

While we're on the topic of semantics, though; you literally can't win a discussion.