https://www.sefaria.org/Ran_on_Nedarim.5a.9?lang=bi
d'l'Eil Ki Parchinan mi'Beraisa Haynu Mishum d'Hava Sevira Lan d'Afilu Yadayim Nami Lo Havi
What's wrong with still saying there's still a machlokes tannaim, and instead of arguing over whether yad shaino mocheach is a yad or not, they are rather arguing over the halachic implications of someone stating 'mudrani mimcha' -- tanna of mishna will say it's halachically meaningless and simply means that the speaker no longer wants to talk to the listener, whereas tanna of braisa will say that it does have halachic significance such that they're both ossur.
The only thing I could come up with, is that it makes sense to argue over a fundamental principle such as whether yad shaino mocheach is a yad or not, but it doesn't make sense to say tannaim argued over the halachic significance of certain phrases such as 'mudrani mimcha'. I do not like to say this at all because what's actually wrong with having such an argument?
Paul Davidowitz, United States
My initial reaction would be to say that there is a rule that we try not to make disputes which are too extreme, with a large gap between the two opinions. Since there is one opinion that "Mudrani Mimcha" is not even a Yad, it would be making too extreme a Machlokes if we say that there is another opionion that it is a Yad Mochi'ach.
"Talmidei Chachamim Marbim Shalom ba'Olam" -- we try to avoid making new arguments!
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom