An appeal to emotions seeks acceptance of a conclusion not through evidence, but by triggering an emotional state (fear, compassion, pride, anger). Emotions are valid, but they do not replace proof.
Example
“If you do not support this law, you do not care about the victims.”
(Guilt is used to avoid discussing the actual content of the law.)
Applied example (political)
“Look at these images of victims; therefore you must support the law.” (Emotion replaces evidence.)
Applied example (mystical)
“This moving testimony proves the technique works.” (Testimony does not replace proof.)
Why it is fallacious
- It shifts attention from the argument to the emotional reaction.
- It confuses empathy with being right.
- It blocks critical analysis by creating urgency or outrage.
How to spot it
- A sudden switch from facts to moving stories without causal link.
- Phrases that force immediate moral judgment: “if you are not with me…”.
- Extreme images or narratives used to justify a general conclusion.
How to respond
- Separate the emotion from the claim: “That is sad, but what does it prove?”.
- Ask for evidence and verifiable criteria.
- Acknowledge the emotion without conceding the conclusion.
Common variants: