Debates vs Logical Arguments

I know the difference between the two. But the only difference I'm not understanding here, is that a friend of mine states that Ad Hominems and Red Herrings will only occur in debates. I'm actually trying to research the information to see if he's right, and I can't seem to find an absolute answer. If anyone is knowledgeable in the subject, feel free to comment in on this.

Debates: Winning the audience over.
Logical Arguments: Between two people / persons

Basically, this started it:

Agreed, that in an logical argument the points are what matters, but in the later section of your comment you mixed definitions. You were talking about a logical argument, then used the term red herring, which is only really relevant in a formal debate where both parties only have set amounts of time for arguments. Also your term Ad Hominem is only relevant in a debate, because in a debate you aren't looking to change your opponents mind on a subject, you're looking win the crowd over.
I do agree that in a logical argument of points the topics are all that should be discussed. However, in a debate, which, based on your use of terminology, I can only assume you are really talking about, regardless of name choice for the argument, your opponent is only a tool used for winning the crowd.
You see there would be no point in using an Ad Hominem if you are only having a one on one conversation, you gain nothing from belittling your opponent in this situation, because your opponent is the only person who's mind you can change in at this point. Same for a Red Herring, because a one on one argument can last indefinitely.
Now, your original point that once a person gets off topic in a debate, which again, I can only assume you are talking about based on terminology, they lose, is wrong. You see a person in a debate is tasked with winning. They are not tasked with changing their opponents mind, and they are not tasked with creating an unbeatable argument. What they ARE tasked with is making the audience, even as small as a third bystander, side with them. So the idea that not using every tool at your disposal to win, I.E. distraction, Red Herrings, and Ad Hominem, is the same as saying that even though I have a gun to kill the guy across the room, because he has a sword, I will fight him with my sword. In the end, it doesn't matter if you win with honor or not, it only matters that you win. So when you find yourself in a room with a gun in one hand, a sword in the other, and an angry looking man with a sword on the other side of the room, will you try to win with honor? I think you'll just win.

Isn't it the other way around? From past experience of browsing Basil.

Debates are essentially persuasive and attempting to get others to agree with your viewpoint and proving why you are right through logic

Arguments, hopefully all are logical but we know that doesn't happen, are an attempt to understand a point through opposing views. Most people fail to achieve this and force a debate. A logical argument is best when opposite views work to understand who has a more sound and rational belief. Usually, an argument will conclude with both parties maintaining their separate views but with a greater comprehension of their beliefs.