Ancient Indian Philosophers like the Naiyāyika-s categorized the theory of debate into 3 components.

1. Debate for a philosophical truth (vādaḥ)
2. Disputation involving advancement of a thesis (jalpa)
3. Destructive debate where no counter-thesis is advanced (vitaṇḍa)

The first two are based on the advancement of a thesis (तत्र वादजल्पौ सप्रयोजनौ) however vitaṇḍa is simply when an opponent in a debate is perverse & refuses to reveal his doctrine or refuses to take an opinionated stand on the issue being discussed. Instead, he just refutes.

What we are refering to here is a destructive skeptic who gives opinions on his opponent's thesis but refuses to adopt or reveal his own position on it. (वितण्डया प्रवतामानो वैतण्डिकः)

The moment he adopts a counter-thesis, he refuses to be a skeptic.

स प्रयोजनमनुयुक्तो यदि प्रतिपद्यते, सोऽस्य पक्षाः सोऽस्य सिद्धान्त इति वैतण्डिकत्वं जहाति

When this opponent finally says "this is my thesis, this is his" or when he puts forth a cause/motive of his own on the issue being discussed, he relinquishes his skeptical destructivity

So as Vātsyāyana would say, what will one obtain in a debate when the opponent is refusing to prove anything? What can be obtained? Nothing, so we don't waste our time on such chatter.

अनभ्युपगच्छन् किंसाधनः परमुपालभेत