I said the difference between emotional and logical arguments is consistency. Let me change that to ‘a difference…’ Also different are the validities of the Appeal to Authority and Ad-Hominem Attacks. In logical arguments, they’re not. In emotional arguments, they are.
An example is whether or not I care about whining. A relative of mine has had a problem. I care about this relative and their complaints were sound, so I cared about their complaints and problem. But I just read a news story of someone complaining about equally valid points, but the person in question struck me as an inveterate whiner. No matter what, they’d be whining about something, so I didn’t really care about what they were whining about now.
Logically, that distinction is meaningless. A logical issue has nothing to do with how many other issues an arguer brings up.
Emotionally, I’ve only got a certain amount of mental energy to care, and once that’s used up, I don’t.
The key distinction here is whether the argument is devoted to the points being sound vs whether I do/should care. Both points were sound (logical) but I cared about the one, not the other (emotional). The logical arguments were effectively won, but I think the news-story arguer was making an implicit argument that something should be done about the issue in the story. Nah. Maybe someone else will.