How to distinguish between wrangling and debate?

Personally, I think the essential difference lies in:

Debate is constructive and quarrel is destructive.

However, wrangling is a common phenomenon in some low-level debates. As a debater, I dare to guess that this may be one of the sources of doubt in the topic. So the "debate" I say below refers to the debate more.

There is a difference between arguing and wrangling, but there is no insurmountable gap. Whether an argument is a debate or a dispute often depends on many factors, such as occasion, reason, personal qualities of both sides and so on. According to my personal observation, the difference between wrangling and debate mainly has the following manifestations:

1. Forced to object

Bargaining is constant opposition and destruction, and generally the food is ugly. Personal attacks and labeling are common means, and sophistry logic is also common. Inspirational words are either self-righteous arrogance, compulsive personality, or strong winning or losing heart. In short, no matter what the motivation is, it never includes the option of "speaking well", let alone "not letting others speak well". Debate pays attention to persuasion, and "speaking well" is an important judging angle of debate, which has separated debate from wrangling.

In addition, wrangling will completely deny the other party's statement. In fact, many indisputable things, in order to save face, broke some anti-common sense remarks, but made jokes. The debate is different. Many times, both sides of the debate need to reach some basic understanding of the topic and establish the basis of communication, which is also different.

2. Indefinite position

Apart from the "opposition" itself, herdsman has no views or fixed positions. According to different viewpoints, herdsman will argue with him from different angles, or herdsman has no "opinion" in his eyes, only "why doesn't the other party shut up". He opposed the debater. Both sides of the debate have their own specific positions, which largely limits the "left-right jump" of their positions.

3. Logic, knowledge and tolerance

There are often great loopholes in the logic of wrangling, or great fallacies in knowledge (such as some anti-common sense remarks mentioned in the first point). Not only that, the biggest harm often comes from the inability to accommodate different views. Herdsman tried to prove not only that "you are wrong and I am right", but that "I am superior/I am smart/I am strong" through "you are wrong" and then explained that "I won and you are all losers". First of all, we should pay attention to etiquette in the debate. Winning or losing a game is winning or losing, and grace is grace. Almost all the people who debate are literate. You can lose the game, but you can't lose your spirit. Too energetic, but easy to fold.

Weakness and ignorance are not obstacles to survival, but arrogance is. People who quarrel often have such an unpleasant arrogance. I hope none of us will be herdsman.