| Home | Our Hope | |
| Bible Study |
|
February 26, 2026 |
| Emotional Arguments | ||
I've talked about emotional arguments before. I'm not referring to arguments where a person becomes emotional during the argument, though we will touch on that here. I'm referring to arguments that are based on an emotional appeal. The opposite of that is a logical argument, which has logic and reasoning as its base.
I've said before that often the people involved in the argument do not realize that each of them is arguing froma different base, one from emotional, one from logical. Because of that, they do not understand what the other is saying, and the argument can't go anywhere. This is referred to as "talking past each other."
In this study, we'll look at and analyze a video where two people are arguing from these different bases.
This video shows a person who is doing the same kind of thing that Charlie Kirk would do. His group goes to a college campus function, sets up a booth, and tries to explain the conservative viewpoint to students who are immersed in a liberal environment.
As the video begins, the conservative has been explaining the conservative view on some topic. We don't know the topic, and it won't matter here. The student, a girl, speaks first.
Here is the video. If you can't view it here, you can view it at https://youtube.com/shorts/RGi4IRUSqv0?si=HIZTL6sW8vVmLfT4
The video is titled "Didn't go the way she wanted..." It was created by a supporter of the group that is doing this outreach. He sees this video as showing a massive logical beatdown of a liberal college student. That isn't what is happening.
The college has been teaching this student subliminally and perhaps explicitly that the courses she is taking will make her into a superior person. Though she hasn't finished her classes, this has fed into her arrogance, and she believes she is already a better person than the average person.
The student was listening to the argument, but she wasn't able to follow it because she isn't good at logical arguments. She hears where the logical arguments take a person, and she knows she doesn't like that because it isn't what she has been taught in the college.
Instead of logically finding a flow in the speaker's reasoning, she goes for an emotional argument. Her emotions are, "What you said is stupid; I hate you." She probably learned in grade school that expressing those emotions in those words sounds childish, is unproductive, and causes people to laugh at you. She could just say those words and move on like a drive-by shooting, but she wants to make an argument out of it. She is certain her superior understanding will win.
The loser is the person who has an emotional blowup and starts screaming. Then the other person mocks the blown-up person and walks away.
This leads to the rules of the argument. You have to say the meanest, most hurtful things you can to get the other person to blowup, but you have to say them in the calmest way you can. It's really a passive-aggressive fight. If you can mix some snotty attitude in with that, all the better.
She decides he can't be as superior as she is, or he wouldn't be saying what he is, so she attacks there. She chooses these words to express those emotions: "It's OK if you didn't finish college." From an emotional argument perspective, that's beautiful in its display of catiness, arrogance, and condescension. From a Biblical perspective, it is pure evil.
He can't possibly have missed all the hatred expressed in those words, but he lets it slide.
Emotional arguments, by their nature, are not good for expressing deep concepts or clarifying details. So the argument can't stay on that emotional base for long.
The best you can do is express a positive emotion, like saying something like, "but I don't hate you. In fact, I care a great deal about you." That says you recognize the hatred she has shown, but you are better than that. After saying that, you have to segue to a logical argument.
The speaker heard the words she said and took them as a logical statement, that she thinks he hasn't finished college. Those are only the words she used to express her emotions. They were never meant to be a factual statement. She doesn't know anything about this guy and is only guessing there is a weakness there, probably because she has a weakness there. Whether the words are true or not is irrelevant.
When an army drops a bomb on someone, the metal of the bomb and its shape don't make a statement about how strong the army is. It's just a delivery mechanism.
The speaker plans to contradict her words as though they were a logical statement. He expects that, when she sees that she was wrong, she will admit that she was wrong and evil and will be reasonable to talk to. That almost never happens.
He slowly, methodically, and rationally explains that he has more degrees and a better degree (a master's degree) than she, and he attended the school at no cost because he qualified for a premier scholarship. His point: he is way above her in education; surely she will be rational now.
She doesn't know why he is telling her all this stuff. She thinks this is still an emotional argument. Therefore he must be trying to impress her. So she disrespects who he is by opening her purse and saying, "Let me see if I have some gold stars for you." Another emotional statement.
He doesn't understand why she didn't understand what he said, so he repeats the highlights.
She begins to see his point. I think she still thinks it is a statement in an emotional argument. She made a false statement, so she should be embarrassed about that, and her credibility is damaged.
She muddles around after that, not knowing what to say.
She is also dealing with the mind opening knowledge that some who went to the same college, took the same courses, and took even more courses, is rejecting what he was taught.
Nothing was accomplished here. It was not a beatdown of a liberal student by a logical conservative. The only thing she will take away from this is that she has to be careful about the words she chooses to express her emotions.
The speaker did well to ignore the emotional statements she threw at him and not get dragged into an emotional argument. She is really feeling "you're stupid; I hate you," whether it makes sense to feel that way or not. She perceives that as a truth and can't be convinced otherwise, especially not in front of her friends and peers.
It isn't easy to ignore words like that because they claw at our egos. We want to defend ourselves, and it's easy to forget what the mission is.
The speaker needs to drag her into a logical argument, but he didn't do well at that. Probably because of his ego, he has chosen to contradict her words, probably for the reasons and the goal mentioned above.
He needs to engage her in a logical argument, saying something like, "What did I say that you didn't agree with?" That approach is almost impossible for her to escape. If she rebuffs his attempt, she looks weak in front of her friends. If she engages, she has to start thinking and stop feeling.
It's easy to be an armchair quarterback. In the heat of the moment, when you are under attack, it's difficult to put the noise aside and focus on where you need to be. Let love overpower your ego.