Arguments vs. Quarrels; a brief thought.

While studying arguments in the first few weeks of our Logic and Critical Reason course, I was introduced to the idea that arguments are not at all what they seem to be in everyday life. I, as I am sure other people were, was brought up believing that arguments and quarrels are the same thing. There was no obvious difference drawn between the two before I stepped foot into this logic class. Going on in my reading and practicing how I, as many other logicians who are much more skilled than I have, pick apart arguments in order to draw a conclusion from the original statement and find the premises that are in support of it. I have come to discover that, unlike quarrels, there is a serious logic behind arguments. They are void of the emotion that comes with quarreling - a person can be passionate about an argument, sure, but that passion isn't used to try to fight uselessly against someone else. Instead, the passion is put toward proving a point; giving reasons or premises that will ultimately make the other person, who is arguing a different point, consider the possible conclusion that the original arguer brought up. Quarreling has less of a logical and precise formula; there is no standard followed by those in a quarrel; it lacks an eloquence that can be found in an argument between two intellectuals. This differentiation between the two concepts has honestly changed my view of the word argument; it has made me see that there is in fact a difference, one that is not typically distinguished by people who haven't learned about the logical process that goes into arguing.