This phenomenon is sometimes called Streitkultur and sorry couldn't find an English WP page explaining it.

Google came up with "A culture of debate", which seems pretty good to me.

The wikipedia page contrasts it with "autocratic systems", which I thinks is also relevant here.

If also sums up better than I did, (despite being an auto-translation), what I was trying to say with the OP:

In a democratic society there is a fundamental principle: different people have different opinions. Parliamentary democracy thrives on political debate, of conflicting interests and finding a balance between these interests. 3 During the dispute in autocratic systems usually seen as a weakening of the Community or a deviation from accepted norms and stabilization is considered in the.

I don't believe that debate weakens this place at all. Not even heated debated. Indeed, I believe it to be the life-blood of this place. Without it, this place would die.

But BUK, to answer your OP, an important part of "Streitkultur" is fairness, e.g. exaggerating rhetorical tricks or strawmans are considered "aggressive".

You and I have touched on similar discussion before. You seem to view 'rhetoric' and 'rhetorical trickery' as the same thing. They aren't.

Rhetoric is not a scheme for winning arguments. It is codification of techniques for:

• presenting argument clearly and concisely;
• and for analysing others arguments to separate the valid from the invalid; the relevant from the irrelevant.

Whilst it can be used by adept practitioners (which I am not), to attempt to overwhelm the opponents arguments rather than address them; discerning and distinguishing attempted trickery, from the more commonplace mistake or misunderstanding, is another skill set entirely.

For example, distinguishing a genuine, but erroneous attempt at justification, from a 'deliberate strawman', is a very fine line. I seem to be attributed with far greater skills in rhetoric than I actually have.