Extreme emotion as a debate ornament

[Beet]

"Emotion" is the bete noir of debate (yet paradoxically, the root of almost all of it). To prove that the other person is "irrational" and driven by emotion is the goal, one would think that a debator displaying extreme emotion and zero logic would be the worst.

Yet I have found sometimes, this is not true. A person will make an argument that I do not in any way comprehend, it seems nonsensical, perhaps even I know it is wrong, yet because of the vehemence with which it is expressed it seems more convincing. You will deny it, but it is so. Particularly if the argument is not well understood. But even when the argument is understood to be wrong... it still leads one to wonder where the sentiment comes from.

And this display of emotion as a legitimate buttress of argumentation has rational bases. For (1), reason tells us that phenomena do not simply appear out of nowhere. So if you see a person being very emotional, chances are there is some reason to it, [without saying whether the reason is legitimately connected to the argument, it is likely to be at least peripherally connected]. (2) reason tells us that statistically, people do not form strong opinions without cause. That is, since reason and emotion are connected, if a person has a strong opinion about it, the chances are greater that it is logical in their mind, independent of  your own personal agreement with their verbalization. You can see this in that people who are telling the truth tend to be more vocal about it than liars. If two people with a conflicting story confront one another and one is clearly telling the truth and the other lying, the one telling the truth, statistically, is more likely to become loud and angry.

[Ban my account ffs!]

What I can tell you right now is trying to define emotions using reason... is about as practical as using emotions to define reason.

And to demand that a debate include one but not the other ruins everything.