Or when objectivity is not called for. All those fallacies and “unfair strategies” are described as they are in order to keep objective discussions at said objective level. Yet, when the discussion by it’s nature cannot be objective, none of those “fallacies” apply as fallacies.
Besides: An appeal is not a bad tactic in any way, shape or form.
All good moral arguments are based on emotion. Things are good if they make people feel good, and bad if they make people feel bad. A world with no arguments from emotion is an amoral world.
Especially when the speaker isn’t a trained orator who knows to avoid that as much as possible during an argument
Or when objectivity is not called for. All those fallacies and “unfair strategies” are described as they are in order to keep objective discussions at said objective level. Yet, when the discussion by it’s nature cannot be objective, none of those “fallacies” apply as fallacies.
Besides: An appeal is not a bad tactic in any way, shape or form.
An appeal to emotion, when you’re trying to prove your case on its logical merits alone, isn’t helpful.
X is good because y and z are true. As opposed to X is good because all my friends like it.
Most often appeals to emotion are kind of necessary. Issues are rarely so black and white as try be purely logical.
Ex is good because when my homies drop ex they have a great night. No Ex is bad for you. But consenting adults being what they are… Etc etc.
All good moral arguments are based on emotion. Things are good if they make people feel good, and bad if they make people feel bad. A world with no arguments from emotion is an amoral world.