I actually got into a heated debate/quarrel/argument with my parents about this statement. I was the one who brought it up. They say that Debating and Quarrelling are two different things. I disagree with that. I'm going to explain why.
See, when two people quarrell, they have conflicting ideas and statements about a similar issue and want to prove the other wrong by telling them the facts and "convince" them that they are wrong. It's just that they do it in a more uncivillised way, with swearing and cursing and everthing. When they quarrell, they flare their temper at each other and usually one of them will give in or give up and sometimes emotions will run high after an argument. Obviously it isn't a good way to settle issues but people usually use it subconsiouly. For example, I usually quarrell with my parents over certain issues, which ends up in them reprimanding me for getting too flared up over something. So, you can come to a conclusion that Quarrelling is in a way uncivillised and rough.
Let us look at Debating. Debates are usually done in Parliamentary Sessions, Court Sessions and competitions. They too have conflicting ideas and statements over a certain issue and they want to convince each other to believe them and also to tell them they what they said is correct. They do not swear at each other but they throw the facts at each other. They do not shout or scream at each other but rather they moderate their tone at the right time. A favourite weapon of politicians, Debating is more professional and civillised as it ends in an agreement and decision between the two parties. However, I think the consequences of losing a debate is more than just emotions running. Sometimes, losing a debate have more sever consequences.
Let us take a look in the courtroom. Losing that debate would mean having a deep impact on the life of the client, whether it is the defendant or the plaintiff. Debate is therfore more formal, serious and professional.
To back up my point even further, let us take a look at boxing and soccer. It may sound irrelevant but it clearly illustrates why debating is the PROFESSIONAL way of arguing. I emphasize the word "Professional". Boxing is a sport where people punch each other till one of them is too tired or unconscious to get back up on his feet again. Strict rules are enforced to prevent the death of their contestants. At this point I want to ask, what is the most "prehistoric" form of boxing? It's fighting. Fighting is something where there are no rules and it is used when people go crazy or they want to beat the living crap out of someone because he/she detests him/her. Is it uncivillized? Yes. There are incidents where people die when they get into fights. People made fighting professional and it is now a popular sport worldwide.
Let us take another look at soccer. People used to play soccer in a violent and barbaric way where cities were up against cities and people would kill to win. Over time, since soccer was so popular but yet so barbaric, rules were added, the sport was made professional by limiting the number of players and also adding goalposts and enforcing rules such as the Red and Yellow card. Soon it changed from the most violent to the most popular and beautiful game in the world.
Same goes for Debating and Quarrelling. Quarrelling is uncivillised and barbaric and using that method to solve issues is very difficult. Therefore people have agreed to sit down and throw the facts to convince others that they are right. There are professionals who do this as a carrer, for example Lawyers and Members of Parliament. Therefore this shows that debating is a more professional way of quarrelling, as only through debating would people resolve things in a more civillized and effective way. Please leave your comments on this as I am open to suggestions and feedback.