I'm right because I'm right.

You can disagree with me all you want, but I'm still right, and the facts prove it.
I suppose that would be true if it weren't for the fact that you're wrong.

Sometimes these lines are used by knuckleheads who either can't or won't defend their arguments. Other times, you hear them from people who are trying to get the idea across that their points are based on externally verifiable facts, rather than arguments and inferences, and therefore they need not engage with their opponent's points in order to carry the day. They may correct about that. Logic is good for testing the validity of propositions. It's less reliable when it comes to discovering and checking facts.

You're arguing from emotion.

This gambit is the reverse of My emotional investment in this issue is very large; therefore my arguments are irrefutable; i.e., the belief that because one's opinions are strongly felt, they must also be valid. "You're arguing from emotions" asserts that because an opponent's opinions are strongly felt, they must be must have been arrived at via emotion, not reason, and are therefore invalid. Unless they have additional support, both of these positions are codswallop. Emotional investment is orthogonal to reason and evidence.

"You're arguing from emotion" is also a self-fulfilling prophecy, since it tends to irritate the hell out of its target. Some variants:

All you've proved is that you're not {smart, rational, talented} enough for me to waste my time responding to you.
I predict that after you've calmed down and had a chance to think this over rationally, you'll see that I'm right.
You wouldn't react with so much hostility if I wasn't right.
You're just saying that because you're female, and everyone knows how well females handle logic.
There are far more important things to worry about than that!
You don't really think that.
Don't worry, the grownups will take care of it.

Streetcorner rebuttals.

Ya Mudda!
Ya Grandmudda!
Tu quoque!
You're one too!
I'm rubber and you're glue.
So there!

The ultimate in insanity is to keep doing the same things while expecting different results.

In its state of nature, this is an allowable statement about the roots of human folly. Unfortunately, it gets misused as an all-purpose dismissal. Step one: identify a historical precedent for one's opponent's course of action. Step two: point out that on that previous occasion, doing it didn't miraculously cure all the world's ills. Step three: invoke the magic line, and claim that you've refuted your opponent.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.