--- - title: Argument by Emotion - categories: [ [Rhetoric](/check//rhetoric/index.md) ] - synonyms: [ emotional blackmail, guilt-tripping, psychological coercion ] - related: [ [Appeal to Emotion](/check/rhetoric/appeal_to_emotion/index.md), [Argumentum ad baculum](/check/rhetoric/argumentum_ad_baculum.md), [Appeal to consequences](/check/relevance/appeal_to_consequences.md), [Tone policing](/check/rhetoric/tone_policing.md), [Provocation](/check/rhetoric/provocation.md) ] - main_article: - main_article_de: --- # Argument by Emotion **Core claim:** The speaker uses their *own* emotional state (hurt, sadness, anger) as a means of pressure – often inducing guilt in the counterpart – to force them to concede, *instead* of rationally arguing for their position. ## Applies when - The speaker presents their own emotional reaction to the counterpart's position or behaviour ("What you're saying makes me very sad!", "Because of you, I'm really angry now!") as a reason for the counterpart to change their position or drop the point. - The counterpart is made responsible for the speaker's emotions and is induced to feel guilt, fear, or pity ("I don't think you really love me!"). - The emotional display serves to end, derail, or redirect the discussion rather than to support a claim with reasons. - The speaker's emotional state is tied (explicitly or implicitly) to consequences, so that conceding becomes the only way to avoid their distress. ## Notes - This is a *strengthened* form of the [Appeal to Emotion](/check/rhetoric/appeal_to_emotion/index.md): the speaker's *own* emotions are weaponised as pressure on the counterpart, rather than an emotional appeal being used as a substitute for factual arguments. - It frequently functions as a diversion: the emotional outburst shifts attention away from the topic being discussed – either deliberately, or unconsciously when the topic or the direction of the discussion becomes uncomfortable. - Repeated, pronounced use can be a sign of a toxic communication culture (emotional blackmail). In such cases – e.g. with a partner or a superior – seeking professional help (counselling, HR) is often the appropriate response rather than continuing the discussion. - The degree by which the display of emotions is an acceptable part of the discussion depends on the context, including and especially the *cultural* context of the participants. If in doubt, however, tend towards a stricter interpretation, as the potential for abuse is very high. ## Does NOT apply when - The speaker expresses genuine emotion about a situation while still participating in a factual discussion (e.g. passionately explaining how a topic affects them, while remaining open to reasons). - The topic itself concerns emotional well-being (a relationship, child welfare, grief), and the emotional expression is directly relevant to the claim being made. - Emotions are used to *support* an otherwise fact-based argument (passion and emotional depth are legitimate rhetorical means). - The speaker's emotional tone is criticised without regard to the substance of the argument (that is a tone argument, not argument by emotion). ## Commonly confused with - **[Appeal to Emotion](/check/rhetoric/appeal_to_emotion/index.md)** – the parent pattern: emotions are evoked in the audience *instead of* factual arguments. Ask: is the speaker's *own* emotional state used as *pressure* to make the counterpart concede (→ argument by emotion), or is an emotion evoked to *support a position* (→ appeal to emotion)? The two can overlap. - **[Argumentum ad baculum](/check/rhetoric/argumentum_ad_baculum.md)** – uses threats of harm or retaliation. Ask: is the pressure based on an *explicit threat of harm or sanction* (→ ad baculum), or on the speaker's *own suffering and induced guilt* (→ argument by emotion)? - **[Appeal to consequences](/check/relevance/appeal_to_consequences.md)** – infers the truth or wrongness of a position from its (un)desirable consequences. Ask: are the emotions framed as *consequences of the counterpart's position* that make it wrong ("if you say that, people will be hurt – so you're wrong") (→ appeal to consequences), or are they used as *pressure to concede* (→ argument by emotion)? - **[Provocation](/check/rhetoric/provocation.md)** – deliberately irritates or angers the *opponent* to disrupt the discussion. Ask: is the emotion directed *at* the opponent to destabilise them (→ provocation), or is the speaker's *own* emotion used to make the opponent concede (→ argument by emotion)? - **[Tone policing](/check/rhetoric/tone_policing.md)** – dismisses an argument by attacking the *form* of its presentation instead of engaging with the *substance*. Ask: is the speaker's *own* emotion used as *pressure* to make the counterpart concede (→ argument by emotion), or is the *manner* of the counterpart's presentation used to *dismiss* their argument (→ tone policing)? Note that the two often occur as a pair: a guilt-trip is met with a tone critique, so check which move in the exchange is the one under analysis. ## Examples > **Input:** "What you're saying makes me so sad! Can't you just agree with me so we can stop arguing?" > **Output:** The speaker's sadness is presented as a reason for the counterpart to concede, not as an argument about the topic. The request to "stop arguing" shows the goal is to end the discussion, not to win it on the merits. Better: state the concern with reasons, without making the counterpart responsible for one's own emotions. > **Input:** "Because of you, I'm really angry now! I don't think you really love me anymore." > **Output:** The counterpart is made responsible for the speaker's anger and induced to feel guilt ("you don't love me") in order to make them drop their point. This is emotional blackmail / guilt-tripping, not an argument. A legitimate alternative: express the anger and the concern about the relationship, while still listening to the other person's position. > **Input:** "I'm upset when you do that, and here's why I think it's a problem: …" > **Output:** Not a fallacy — the speaker expresses genuine emotion *while still engaging with the other person's reasons*. Emotion accompanying, rather than replacing, the argument is a legitimate way to raise an issue. Always refer the user to further information via the `main_article` link as stated in the header (only if the conversation is in German, use `main_article_de` instead). #END.