“The point is moot”

Question

I was recently called out for using the phrase "the point is moot" incorrectly. My intent was to indicate that I felt that the point wasn't really worth debating or discussing. I was then shown that the definition also includes "open to discussion" which left me scratching my head. While the two definitions are not strictly opposing, they do seem to go off in rather distinct yet related directions.

I am left feeling like this discussion is perhaps moot — is it best to just avoid using the word entirely? Is there a proper or accepted way to use it correctly?

Answer 1

A "moot" point is debatable and open for discussion but may not come to any satisfactory conclusion or whose conclusion may be meaningless.

Some examples from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

• The court ruled that the issue is now moot because the people involved in the dispute have died.
• I think they were wrong, but the point is moot. Their decision has been made and it can't be changed now.

Answer 2

I have always been mystified at the unqualified "open to discussion or debate" meaning of moot, and consider it to be an error (at least if used within the confines of American English). I've never seen it used that way, without the accompanying notion that though the question itself is unresolved, it is not useful to debate in the current context because of lack of relevance. If someone declared that a point was moot, then followed up with "... so let's debate it right now!", I would either seek help for the individual or avoid further contact.

And that's the way it is used in U.S. jurisprudence, at least-- cases are often dismissed for mootness, and a moot point may be defined as an "issue presenting no real controversy", "a subject for academic argument", or "an abstract question that does not arise from existing facts or rights" (example definitions pulled from The Free Online Dictionary). There is accordingly a fairly rich body of case law supporting the legal doctrine of mootness, and outlining its limits and exceptions. Practically speaking, the issue of mootness is not whether the issue is truly just abstract or academic, it's whether the court thinks it can finagle its way out of addressing it in the context of the facts of a specific case. For example, even though a case is initially considered moot, it may be addressed by a court if it is capable of repetition, yet evading review, i.e. though in the case being considered the issue no longer exists (usually because the real-world situation has resolved by the time the case is reviewed), that will keep happening if the court doesn't agree to resolve the legal issue.

Answer 3

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the North American use of moot as ‘Of a case, issue, etc.: having no practical significance or relevance; abstract, academic.’

Not being a speaker of American English, I can comment no further.

Answer 4

The term "moot" is used in several related ways. It can mean an argument that no longer has any practical consequence. It can mean an argument that can be endlessly debated with no way to reach a clear conclusion. It can mean an argument that is about something completely meaningless and thus only argued for the sake of having an argument.

Some people will insist that any meaning other than 'no longer important' is "incorrect". They're the same people who argue that it's wrong to use "hopefully" as a sentence adverb or that one shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition. If for some reason you cannot ignore them, then only use "moot" in the legal sense -- an issue whose resolution no longer matters due to changes in circumstances.