Pathos gambit

The pathos gambit (also reverse appeal to emotion) is a pathetic logical fallacy in which one debater falsely claims that their opponent is using emotional arguments ( rather than factual arguments ( Emotional arguments are quite obviously not logically sound, and are a whole class of fallacies themselves. However, the pathos gambit poisons the well by painting an opponent as too emotional/biased to approach a subject rationally — while, presumably, the gambit-maker is a bastion of Vulcan reason. Unfortunately, it is easier to paint someone as emotional/biased than to scrub off said paint.
The gambit is an informal fallacy. It is valid only in circumstances below:
#The opponent is so emotional/biased that they cannot step back and examine facts rationally, like Juror #3 in This is very difficult to prove in most casual encounters and the burden of proof rests with the accuser — not the accused. It can take years for people to truly get to know each other. Assuming that a few minutes of interaction (especially text-only, online interaction) with someone are sufficient to fully understand their intentions and their thought process comes dangerously close to fallacious Bulverism (and that's assuming that it's not outright crossing the line). Or:
#The opponent's arguments are substantially based on how certain things make them feel. Notably, this is not the same as mentioning one's feelings on an issue (i.e., "X is dumb because Y and makes me feel sad") — this is saying that one's feelings necessarily prove some conclusion, independent of the facts (i.e., "X is dumb because X makes me feel sad").
In short: If someone makes an argument and mentions their feelings, saying "feelings bad!!" or "facts trump feelings" is not a sufficient rebuttal.
This fallacy is disproportionately common among atheists and skeptics (likely because each face disproportionately more emotional appeals for gods and pseudosciences). It is also common amongst the modern anti-"SJW" crowd — which, somewhat ironically, appears to have desensitized actual SJWs to emotion-based arguments.
==Alternate names==
*Feels not reals (or vice versa)
*"Pushing the narrative"
==Form==
Strong form:
Whether the argument is fallacious rests on whether P1 is true. If P1 is true, then [X] has committed an appeal to emotion and their arguments fall. If P1 is false, however, then accusing them of an appeal to emotion is fallacious.
Weak form:
This form is very difficult to uphold. There are very few cases (especially in terms of Internet debates) in which someone is so extremely emotional that their testimony can be completely discounted for that reason alone. This is even more true if the person has factual, sourced statements around which they are basing their emotion — in which case, their emotions shouldn't even be the substance of the debate.
==Explanation==
Gwyfyoung, author of "The Ethics Of…", outlines the basic problem behind use of the pathos gambit. Stephen Fry objected to a group of students at Oxford College who wanted to tear down a statue of extremely pro-imperialist because he thought that they were doing it on the grounds of being "offended":https://theethicsof.com/2016/04/14/the-ethics-of-being-offended/
In other words, it is not sufficient to merely call out your opponent for being emotional — you also have to contest their facts, or else you, too, are acting based on emotion alone.
One could also argue that the point of a statue which glorifies any particular individual is intended to evoke an emotional response, as it is, after all, a work of Art. In such a situation, the emotion which the statue is intended to evoke is part of why its removal may be considered. Since the context is less neutral than if, say, the statue was in a museum, it makes less sense to claim that not actively promoting Rhodes is a form of censorship, since it's essentially a way of convincing someone that Rhodes wasn't quite so bad (an objective lie). 
Another means of battling the fallacy is to argue that feelings have physical effects on people, something which the field of psychology has demonstrated time and again. Calling someone a racial slur may not physically harm them, but it sure as hell will hurt them emotionally (and it makes you a racist asshole). 
==Examples==
===Respectful Hitler===
===Parodies===
The underlying logic of the pathos gambit is often clearest when used in parody — though said parody is often not seen as such.
Evidence is a white cis male invention: the SJW parody personality Godfrey Elfwick made fun of "SJW" logic:http://web.archive.org/web/20150311112206/https://twitter.com/godfreyelfwick/status/574376823812939776
The Tweet was then widely used as evidence of "SJWs" preferring their feelings over fact.https://twitter.com/knucklenicks/status/624987540479680512http://imgur.com/gallery/N6icAL5https://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/comments/2ymj5f/evidence_is_a_white_cis_male_invention/http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1068784-white-cis-malehttp://www.cringechannel.com/2015/03/12/picture-evidence-according-to-feminists/https://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrCirclejerk/comments/30x4vx/evidence_is_a_cis_white_male_invention_so_they/
Scientific evidence that obesity is harmful = lies: The "Truest Feminist" (Tumblr), which is an open parody, posted this:Combine all the words in slashes for the truth: I'M MOCKING RADICAL FEMINISTS postedhttp://truestfeminist.tumblr.com/post/108683118219/medresearch-obesity-fuels-silent-heart-damage
In turn, this was widely taken as serious, and roundly condemned.http://coolcatcatherine.tumblr.com/post/133433452491/truestfeminist-medresearch-obesity-fuelshttp://haitoto.tumblr.com/post/112057227021/truestfeminist-medresearch-obesity-fuelshttp://thepuck77.tumblr.com/post/127203394570/truestfeminist-medresearch-obesity-fuelshttp://img.ifcdn.com/images/aba4f66296223517b2c106722b6097db0187ce073cc01c23658b7053899ec679_1.jpg
Fat = omniscient: The "Feels not Reals" Tumblr has a personal description:http://speshulsnowflake.tumblr.com/
===Others===
*@Eris_1_: "SJW gem from @_gretchie: my feelings trump scientific evidence".SJW gem from @_gretchie: my feelings trump scientific evidence #SJWLogic by Eris (6:58 PM - 7 Jun 2015) Twitter (archived from August 27, 2019).
*In general, anything posted under #SJWLogic on Twitter.https://twitter.com/hashtag/SJWLogic
*This beautiful vandalism, which caricatures its enemies as easily-defeated emotional wrecks and its supporters as objective, unemotional, and unstoppable:http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sargon_of_Akkad&curid=174928&diff=1654223&oldid=1652406
==External links==
*
*"Feels and Reals": A relatively sane, albeit antifeminist and pro-Gamergate blog
*Feels Vs Reals original full video (parody)
*Facts vs Feelings: Newt Gingrich doesn't understand
==References==
Category:Ad hominem
Category:Emotional appeals
Category:Fallacious arguments
Category:Informal fallacies