DangerousTalk

There is a fine line between being overly emotional in an argument and using emotion to strengthen an argument. Often time’s people confuse the two. More often however, people tend to be overly emotional in arguments rather than merely using emotion to strengthen their argument.

So what’s the difference? Well, when someone is overly emotional, they tend to argue illogically. They tend to ramble on and on without focus. They insult without making a point. Put simply, they are out of control. Their emotions are controlling them rather than the other way around.

When someone uses emotion to strengthen an argument, the argument tends to be more focuses, logical, and on point. However, the argument is passionate and full of life. The emotional components to the argument are used to give a boost to the already logical points being made. If one were to take the emotion out of the argument, the argument would still stand on its own. The use of emotion simply calls attention to certain points and adds passion and energy to those points.

Generally speaking, I have found that theists are quick to lose control of their emotions and tend to argue emotionally while atheists tend to either stay clear of emotions all together or to use emotions to strengthen their argument. I should point out that it isn’t always that way. I have seen a few atheists who let their emotions run over them and a few theists who were able to control their use of emotions to strengthen their argument fairly efficiently.

Related articles

• Reason and the Passions, How do I make one control the other? (ask.metafilter.com)
• How to Argue Effectively & Win (kaushikinfo.wordpress.com)

Filed under: Ad Hominem, debate