I recently read an introduction about ontology. A section was about the debate whether to exist and to have being is the same.
One position says (attributed to Meinong), that some things exist and some things have being. Dragons, for example, have being, but don't exit. According to this position, one can make sense of propositions like "Dragons don't exist".
The other position says (attributed to Quine), that having being and existing is the same thing. To say, dragons don't exist is to say that dragons don't have being.
I expected to see an explanation of the theoretical importance of this debate, but the section just ended.
I don't get, what the point of this debate is. The first position agrees with the second, that dragons are somehow not present and that we can't touch them for example. It seems to me, that this debate is only about linguistic preferences, whether I want to say, that dragons have being or not.
Since I don't believe, that philosophers just talk about linguistic preferences, I must have missed something.
My question: What is the theoretical importance of the debate, whether to exist and to have being is the same?