I think it's an important point that you can never argue that another's emotions are wrong.
We might arguing for things we believe should happen, or things that we might want, or about the truth of our stories, or the validity of where we obtained them, or even how emotional responses might be inconsistent, or appear excessive... but we can't argue that others emotions are wrong. Our emotions simply are what they are.
People however, have a habit of forming opinions based on emotions, which they then try to back up with logical argument. We all do it to varying degrees.
It leads to conflicts in all kinds of arguments. If a person makes an emotional decision that a fetus is a human life, we can't say they're wrong. It's an emotional decision.
If they then dictate that abortion should be illegal because it's the taking of a human life, we might suggest that they are not considering the effects on the life of the pregnant woman who is forced into giving birth; We might argue why we don't value the life of the fetus in the same way as we value the life of the developed woman; we might argue that legally the foetus is not considered a human life until it reaches a certain age, but we can't logically state that their emotional decision to value that specific life is wrong. We can only argue that we don't make the same emotional decision to value that life in the same way they do, or that we value the life, and right of the adult to choose in equal or greater terms.
And if we understood the difference between emotional and logical arguments, and that some arguments are about balancing different emotional positions, rather than refuting them, there would probably be a lot less conflict in our discussions.
Peace and Love
with a suitable dose of cynicism.
In the quest for balance and joy