In the aerospace industry, semantics matter. "Structurally deficient" implies that the aircraft structure itself (i.e. the spars, ribs, load-bearing skin, etc.) is unsafe. This is not accurate, and neither is it accurate to say the MAX is "unstable". These are terms of art with precise engineering meanings.
Precision in language matters, and to dismiss it as "semantics" pre-empts any meaningful discussion of the issue at hand. It's like saying float vs char is "semantics". Those differences matter.
edit: Also, when you say the engines were put "on top of the plane" it makes me question if you've ever actually seen a MAX 8.
Apart from that, I don't have to like people saying "it's just semantics" if they mean the exact opposite.
Interpreting your comments in the most charitable way, you must have reasons for your opinions that convince you, so it would contribute more to the discussion if you explained why.
Nobody rejects "semantics".
Boeing used a 737 airframe for economic reasons (it wwas way cheaper, didnt require pilot retraining), but needed more ground clearance for bigger engines. The 737 design cant be practically modified to have taller main landing gear. The solution was to mount to engines higher on the plane. This made the plane more unstable, so they slapped the software solution on. This "fixed" the problem, but then the plane was more complex to fly, which led to the crashes. But Boeing didn't want a plane that required retraining, so they hid the complexity of the software solutions, which led to crashes because the pilots didn't know what was going on.
Sure you can say the plane was structurally fine, but this is semantics, they created a plane that was unstable because it was cheaper.