The Art of Deception (Refutation with Pathos)

Nicholas Capaldi and Miles Smith The Art of Deception

Refutation p117+

One of the ways to refute an argument is to expose it as absurd.  This can be done by exposing factual information that has not been properly disclosed and respected.  This must be applied both to the major premise and to sub-arguments.

An appeal to pity can be taken as a major premise.

Example:  The President urges the Congress to vote about some aspects of gun control by focusing on the suffering of the victim's families.  If this deflects from facts, it must be examined. A counter premise can be raised--the fear of persons who might be too vulnerable without firearm protection.
The danger is to make certain that all things really do connect.  Otherwise the counter proposal is far worse than the initial one.

So assertions that rest on fear, sentimentality, pity, and other emotions (Pathos appeal) are an argument in and of themselves.  When the President features the victim's family he is calling for a pity assertion.  When the right counters with a disgust with that visuals of the President using children and conflating it with Naziism and then with a fear argument that the USA is turning int a fascist nation, their construct takes on a complex argument.

Is either emotion assertion correct?  Can either be proven?  Suppose the victim's family now wants guns for protection?  Suppose the government has no intention of encroaching to the level of a Nazi regime?  No wonder there is so much controversy.  Logic is in need of some support.

I'd rather see this issue discussed on another level.