Two Types of Arguing

We went over the nineteen common logical fallacies of philosophical arguments in class. Some of them pointed out mistakes in arguments when people generalize, threaten, ask for sympathy or just ignorance. This got me thinking that most arguments I've ever been in or won have involved one of these. Most of my arguments involve emotion. I feel like when an argument involves emotion it involved a little piece of each person involved. Meaning their opinions and their issues, meaning the argument pretty much isn't logical and cannot be taken seriously. Which made me think is there two types of arguing? Arguing that can help improve a person's outlook on life and personality through seeing things purely the way another sees things. Then the other form: arguing just to prove a point. Arguing with only logic and third person perspectives that help a larger number of people. I think both types of arguing help our society in large and small ways.