Appeal to Emotion

Core claim: A position is supported by appealing to the audience's emotions instead of presenting factual arguments that support it.

• A position is supported primarily or exclusively by an appeal to the audience's emotions (pity, fear, outrage, guilt, hope, pride, flattery) rather than by factual arguments.
• Rhetorical questions are used to provoke an emotional reaction (e.g. Does the suffering of children mean nothing to you?) without providing a factual basis.
• Emotionally charged imagery or slogans (“Think of the children!”) are used to underpin a position that has little or nothing to do with the welfare of the people depicted.
• Fear is deliberately stoked (existential fears, FOMO, threats) so that the discussion can no longer continue on a rational level.
• Existing negative feelings toward a person or group (spite, revenge) are invoked as a substitute for a factual argument.

• The fallacy is specifically about emotions taking precedence over factual arguments. Supporting factual arguments with an emotional appeal is not fallacious.
• The mere fact that a speech is conducted emotionally is not an indication of fallacious argumentation. A speaker can have good arguments and a strong emotional connection to the topic at the same time.
• The appeal can target any emotion – positive or negative (fear, spite, revenge, pride, flattery, pity, guilt, hope, etc.).
• If the emotional appeal succeeds in making the audience no longer accessible to rational arguments, the speaker has effectively “won” the audience (Rabulism).
• An overly emotional tone can backfire: audiences who believe they have sound counter-arguments may feel “taken for a ride” and react with an equally emotional counter-reaction (Provocation).
• 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.

• Factual arguments are presented and supported by an emotional appeal (e.g. a well-researched argument about child welfare that also includes an emotional plea).
• The speaker expresses genuine emotion (anger, joy, sadness) about a situation while still participating in a factual discussion (however, see Argument by emotion for abusive use of emotions).
• The topic under discussion is specifically about emotional well-being (e.g. child welfare), and the emotional appeal is directly relevant to the factual claim being made.
• The speaker's emotional tone is criticised without regard to the substance of the argument (see Tone policing).

• Argument by emotion – A stronger form of the “appeal to emotion”. Ask: is the display of emotions used to manipulate others (→ argument by emotion), or are emotions evoked to make an argumentative point (→ appeal to emotion). These two can overlap in some instances.
• Appeal to consequences – argues that a proposition is true or false based on its desirable or undesirable consequences. Ask: is the fallacy about emotional manipulation (→ appeal to emotion), or about inferring truth from consequences (→ appeal to consequences)?
• Argumentum ad baculum – uses threats or force to support a position. Ask: is the fallacy about emotional manipulation (→ appeal to emotion), or about threats of harm or retaliation (→ argumentum ad baculum)?
• Provocation – deliberately irritates or angers the opponent to disrupt the discussion. Ask: is the fallacy about manipulating the audience's emotions (→ appeal to emotion), or about provoking the opponent (→ provocation)?

Input: “Does the suffering of children mean nothing to you? How can you not support this law?”
Output: The argument appeals to pity for children to support a political position without presenting factual evidence that the proposed law is effective. Emotions are used instead of factual arguments.

Input: “Climate change will turn our planet into an uninhabitable wasteland! That's why we must ban all internal combustion engines by next year.”
Output: The argument stokes existential fear to support a specific policy without presenting factual evidence that this particular measure is effective or necessary. Fear is used instead of a factual argument.

Input: “Other people have already made millions in cryptocurrencies. Buy Bitcoins now before you miss out!”
Output: The appeal to FOMO (fear of missing out) is used to support a financial decision without presenting factual evidence about the investment's merits.

Input: “Let the refugees drown. Why do they also go out to sea in shipwrecked boats?”
Output: The argument invokes spite toward refugees as a substitute for a factual argument about immigration policy.

Input: “We are going through a hard time, but the future will be all the brighter – that's why this policy will work.”
Output: The appeal to hope is used to support a policy without presenting factual evidence that it will achieve the promised outcome.

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.