Appealing to emotion is a logical fallacy in debating.

Thank you for instigating this debate challenge and good luck! Rebuttals I thought Pro was going to open with his debate but as they say, bird poop happens... Generally when a person makes a claim, they have to back it up with reasoning so someone can counter those reasons in a debate. Thank you for doing so. In response to the bit about deception. It is not my intent to deceive the audience, or use semantics in this debate at all, but rather attack the philosophical part of this resolution. Appealing to emotion can look one of several ways, so it"s important to understand what exactly an appeal to emotion is exactly in context to this debate. EX: Person A: "Population increase is becoming a problem; in order to maintain self-preservation and maximize the use of resources for ourselves, we need a population reduction. In such a sense, I think we should kill a percentage of the population." Person B: "But killing is immoral"" In this situation, person B has the more popularly shared opinion for example. In fact many people might answer in the same way as he did. But person one provided a logical argument for self-preservation. Because morality stems from the basis of human emotions and feelings, the concept or belief in morality alone does not provide a valid rebuttal to person A"s scenario. But morality, Justice, and Ethics while founded on emotions, are still used commonly as valid debate arguments and challenges. It is almost inevitable when bringing up arguments involving these three concepts, that emotion doesn"t have some type of strings attached. The way society weighs appeals to emotion though is commonly looked at as: "Favorable emotions are associated with X. Therefore, X is true." That is basically the definition of the appeal to emotion Keeping this in mind let me jump into my case. My Arguments Contention 1: Appealing to emotion is too broad to avoid entirely. Our human emotions and feelings influence the way we feel, think, and act. In almost any major debate issue, you can attach a stance on a position to your emotions. In a debate about abortion, one person"s argument is about their feelings towards the deprecation of the life of a child, while the others can be that of the freedom and safety of the mother. Both stances are based entirely off of a subjective emotional feeling toward a subject. A Gay rights activist feels that gays are being discriminated against, while his contender may feel that his sexual preference is an atrocious aspect. They have their reasons to follow their points, but understanding that every argument is based on an emotional stance is important. Emotion is the set up for a debate, and to call an argument based on emotions fallacious is redundant. Contention 2: Reasons, or lack there-of is what should be fallacious. Based on my above contention, it is the reasons that follow those emotional appeals that create the actual debate. In my earlier example, person B makes a claim based on his emotions, without further backing up reasons as to why he feels that way. He makes a claim that supports a favorable stance rather than making it clear to his opponent why he feels that way, and why the following feelings are important. Trying to level and understand another debater"s emotions toward a subject, to then weigh them with your own emotions is what makes a debate. But the emotional stance Person B makes isn"t the problem itself, it"s the lack of follow up. Person A made it clear that he feels self-preservation is more important, backing his emotions up with reasons such as maximization of resources. His point as a meaning, and an endpoint, whereas Person B has only the stance. His entire argument, is still only an appeal to his own emotions. Conclusion: In an actual debate, debaters have to appeal to emotion to make the debate even happen. A good argument is pre-dispositional off on an emotional stance. Arguments should not be discredited based on their emotional appeal, but rather on the merit of weighing reasons.