Should emotion be part of an argument?

[Amplifier]

Should people use emotion in their arguments or is that a cheap way around making a legitimate point?

This isn't a question of effectiveness (I know yelling can get a point across). I feel that even a heated topic can be discussed rationally without resorting to an emotional display.

-Amp

 

[zendari]

Only when arguing with bleeding heart liberals.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: zendari
Only when arguing with bleeding heart liberals.

What part of that wasn't a troll?

 

[judasmachine]

emotions are who we are, we can deny it as much as we can escape it.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Amplifier
Should people use emotion in their arguments or is that a cheap way around making a legitimate point?

This isn't a question of effectiveness (I know yelling can get a point across). I feel that even a heated topic can be discussed rationally without resorting to an emotional display.

-Amp

Originally posted by: zendari
Only when arguing with bleeding heart liberals.

guess that answers that question.

 

[cwjerome]

Well... I think it's a dicey situation. It all depends I guess. Obviously, emotional is not reason, and emotion alone is not an argument. But I think it would be very foolish for anyone to think we can remove emotion from debate. Emotion is as part of us as anything there is and believing issues and ideas can somehow be discussed while omitting a very large characteristic of all human beings seems impossible.

Emotions are an important part of our lives and thinking. But emotions are an EFFECT, and should never be the cause. Therefore, using emotion as a cheap way of making a point is simply reversing this cause-effect relationship and is dangerous. Starting with emotion and then rationalizing or justifying them is unreasonable and immoral.

 

[Infohawk]

Logically, if two people are discussing something and one makes an argument, the emotional state of either party has nothing to do with the validity of an argument (unless that argument is about the person's emotional state). It's not that dicey at all.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Amplifier
This isn't a question of effectiveness (I know yelling can get a point across). I feel that even a heated topic can be discussed rationally without resorting to an emotional display.

I absolutely agree. I just wish these people did too. EVERY single one of their arguments is based on emotion and/or anthropomorphism.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Amplifier
This isn't a question of effectiveness (I know yelling can get a point across). I feel that even a heated topic can be discussed rationally without resorting to an emotional display.

I absolutely agree. I just wish these people did too. EVERY single one of their arguments is based on emotion and/or anthropomorphism.

Using a third party's emotions (like an animals suffering) isn't in itself fallacious. When emotions are in question (meaning they are what is being debated) it's obviously going to be fair game. I suspect PETA cares about the emotions of the animals.

 

[judasmachine]

Also, remaining calm during a debate does not mean that no emotion was used. Getting angry or crying is one thing, using emotion in the forming of your opinion is almost critical. Just because you think 1+1=2 or 3 you had to confront something more than reason, or rational, you had to make an emotional leap as it may or may not go against what you think and feel. You are not a Vulcan, and as such you will use emotion to decide which side of the fence you are going to fall off.

Hmm.... I'm not sure I'm making sense here, I may edit this soon.

 

[cwjerome]

Maybe I'm wrong and it's not a dicey issue.

I suppose someone could speak to another person about issues and ideas and FEEL absolutely nothing. All I can say is, I'd hate to have that person's life.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Amplifier
This isn't a question of effectiveness (I know yelling can get a point across). I feel that even a heated topic can be discussed rationally without resorting to an emotional display.

I absolutely agree. I just wish these people did too. EVERY single one of their arguments is based on emotion and/or anthropomorphism.

Using a third party's emotions (like an animals suffering) isn't in itself fallacious. When emotions are in question it's obviously going to be fair game. I suspect PETA cares about the emotions of the animals.

Perhaps initially, but if you knew what went into conducting research with non-human animals you would see that all of their claims are playing into the emotion of uninformed people. Add in the fact that we cant hope to determine if non-human animals have "emotions," and that creates a nasty stew of misinformation playing to emotion. I consider this a much more heinous abuse of emotion in discussion than any other in convincing the ill infomed of a nefarious agenda. Assigning human emotions to non-human animals is more fallicious than any other form of using emtion to forward ones agenda.

 

[TWills]

my 2 cents worth:

I think emotion in an argument only works if you are appealing to a specific audience
Example:
Speech to pro-lifers
"I believe abortion KILLS children. Who wants to see children slaughtered in these abortion clinics and flung out with the rest of the garbage? Who is so callous and twisted that they would DO such a thing? Are we humans or animals, that we kill our own young?"etc.etc.etc.
Speech to abortion supporters:
"I believe abortion KILLS children. Who wants to see children slaughtered in these abortion clinics and flung out with the rest of the garbage? Who is so callous and twisted that they would DO such a thing? Are we humans or animals, that we kill our own young?"etc.etc.etc.

It makes a difference in your credibility, especially when it's geared to the right crowd. It also helps cement your argument, but it should not be the core of your argument.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Maybe I'm wrong and it's not a dicey issue.

I suppose someone could speak to another person about issues and ideas and FEEL absolutely nothing. All I can say is, I'd hate to have that person's life.

Yup, passion is an emotion!

 

[totalcommand]

Emotion is twenty gajillion times better than an actual argument in politics

I suggest a look at many of Riprorin's posts. Most appeal to emotion rather than have substance.

But, personally I'm more convinced by actual arguments (like CycloWizard used to post) than emotional appeals. Which is why Riprorin has a 1% chance of convincing me of the stuff he writes.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Emotion is twenty gajillion times better than an actual argument in politics

I suggest a look at many of Riprorin's posts. Most appeal to emotion rather than have substance.

But, personally I'm more convinced by actual arguments (like CycloWizard used to post) than emotional appeals. Which is why Riprorin has a 0% chance of convincing me of the stuff he writes.

Fixed

Cylco just has slightly larger than 1% chance of convincing people due to his use of logical fallices and making the issuses more complex than they really are.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Maybe I'm wrong and it's not a dicey issue.

I suppose someone could speak to another person about issues and ideas and FEEL absolutely nothing. All I can say is, I'd hate to have that person's life.

Gee, thanks alot.

 

[Orsorum]

As part of an exchange of logic, I don't see a place for it. In an argument, however, yes, emotional appeals are fair game. Using them in good taste and to good effect, however, is an art.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Amplifier
Should people use emotion in their arguments or is that a cheap way around making a legitimate point?

This isn't a question of effectiveness (I know yelling can get a point across). I feel that even a heated topic can be discussed rationally without resorting to an emotional display.

-Amp

Understanding what and why you are asking is, I think, as important as any answer:

What is involved for you with 'should or shouldn't', what kind of yardstick are you seeking and to satisfy what inner need? I hear some inner intimidation you seek ammunition with which to defend and defy, like I will feel better being logical or having lost arguments to emotion if I know emotion is wrong. In that case what you need is to become conscious of what you are feeling. Then the issue will resolve in another dimension.

Why the use of words like cheep and legitimate? Are you not asking a question about the use of emotion, emotionally? The question is, what are you feeling. I sense that there is hurt somewhere in here for you.

Most people, I think, can be rational when discussing things that do not affect or challenge or intimidate their ego or anything they have identified their ego with. I think people identify with externals, political parties, sports teams, nations, etc etc etc etc etc etc, because they feel worthless inside. They are constantly looking for something that's the very best so they can bask vicariously in its glory and hide their own feelings of inferiority from themselves. So when you come along all logical and knock down their tin gods, you threaten to kick out their crutch. That people will resist to the death because they we killed emotionally as children. We will die rather than relive that death.

Anyway, by now you may have completely lost interest in your question.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Maybe I'm wrong and it's not a dicey issue.

I suppose someone could speak to another person about issues and ideas and FEEL absolutely nothing. All I can say is, I'd hate to have that person's life.

Gee, thanks alot.

Does my statement apply to you? I hope not... A person without emotions, a person without feelings, is a subhuman machine. Somehow I doubt this is true though... barring some psychological defect, our emotions are with us every milisecond of every day, whether we're watching TV, cooking a meal, or debating an issue.

The thing is to know the source of your emotions and understand them in context. Emotions are important keys to our existence, but a rational man makes a point to discover the premises from which they arise... but emotions should never be our guide.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: homercles337
Assigning human emotions to non-human animals is more fallicious than any other form of using emtion to forward ones agenda.

This is an odd view. Which is worse? Which is more unreasonable to you?

- You are wrong because you are hateful! (pure logical fallacy)
- Primates share many emotions with humans and since we don't like human pain, we should not like primate pain. (You may not agree with the premises/facts, but there is no fallacy).

You have to distinguish between an argument ABOUT emotion and an argument that is based on the emotional state of a party to the argument.

Though it's off-topic, I think your view of animal emotions is not in line with modern science. We know many emotions are essentially chemical reactions. We know animals, primates especially, share these chemical reactions with us. (I'm not taking a postion on what we should do with this information).

 

[Amplifier]

"You have to distinguish between an argument ABOUT emotion and an argument that is based on the emotional state of a party to the argument."

I was about to post that because the question has been misinterpreted.

There is nothing wrong with an argument being made because of an emotion. However the question is should the actual argument use emotion.

"Why the use of words like cheep and legitimate? Are you not asking a question about the use of emotion, emotionally? The question is, what are you feeling. I sense that there is hurt somewhere in here for you. "

No hurt, just putting the question out there.

 

[Moonbeam]

M: "Why the use of words like cheep and legitimate? Are you not asking a question about the use of emotion, emotionally? The question is, what are you feeling. I sense that there is hurt somewhere in here for you."

A: No hurt, just putting the question out there.

M: Hehe, I remember the first time I was told I was defensive. I said, "I am not."

There is no such thing a "just putting the question out there". But that does not mean you are conscious of why. Do not assume that knowing yourself is easy. It is the most difficult thing to do.

 

[Mr Duck]

I take the question to mean instead of the word arguement,replace that with debate. It is hard to remeber any arguement that is made without the use and missplaced emotions. But to argue a debate successfully it is better to use knowledge,logic, and patients. Emotions could be used to missplace the topic and emotions like anger for example is often used by one side to control or lead the other side into mistake.

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: zendari
Only when arguing with bleeding heart liberals.

Troll troll troll your boat...

EDIT: To be more on topic I don't think this can be a vaild question. How can emotion not be part of an argument? Doesn't emotion also trigger arguments?

EDIT2: Wrong quote, apologies.