Almost every argument based in emotion is horseshit. In business you never make a decision based on how you feel, you go with the facts and maybe a touch of intuition. Why would you treat your personal life any differently?
The one based in fact. But you still need to properly define a fact, before that statement means anything of substance. Ohterwise, you'll just have people like fandango86 tell you that a fact is just something everyone agrees about. Like this:
Well sure, it is "almost", because emotions are a part of reality. So yeah, if the topic of the conversation is emotions, then an argument might be based on someone observing those emotions and making a statement about them. For instance: I'm feeling sad because my mother's plane crashed, therefor I'm not a psychopath. Logical conclusion, and it's technically based on an emotion.
The problems start when someone starts observing emotions to make statements about minimum wage or the laws of physics. Then they're making an error, because they're not using logic to draw conclusions from their observation of reality. "people with no skills making 8 bucks an hour is wrong" is not the logical consequence of "I feel sad because people with no skills are making 8 bucks an hour", just as "it's wrong for a plane to crash when it runs out of fuel" is not the logical consequence of "I feel sad when a plane crashes". In fact, it is RIGHT that a plane crashes if it runs out of fuel, and it is RIGHT that someone with no skills makes very little money. It's Physics and Economics, both logical systems of thought based on the observation of reality.
It's not valid if his freshly exonerated client then goes to his house and rapes his wife and children. Then he's suddenly introduced to what is called the ol' fantasy-real world dichotomy, by which what's valid in some retarded juror's mind is not going to work out so well in reality. (Ok, so I made the name up)