Over the course of the last few decades, we have seen a shift in the nature of how arguments are won/lost. An appeal to someone's emotions will almost win the argument in terms of supporters who empathize with such a person. This is sometimes regardless of whatever logical facts are on ground to the opposition.
It has proven to be a very effective strategy and I believe some of the major cultural and political changes we have seen over the years round the World have witnessed some form of this happening. Maybe it is a bit naive to call it a 'shift', perhaps appealing to human emotions has always been the way to go as far as effecting change is concerned, and only became more prominent.
I have no issues with this strategy actually . Something that appeals to my emotions will feel more 'real' than some random facts and figures. The only problem I have is the narrative that in such scenarios there is always a good and bad side to choose from, and the good side is always the side that resonates more with our emotions.
Learning that people who pander to the emotions of others can be quite brutal themselves is one of the most revealing leasons I have witnessed as an adult. It takes more than just a teary eye to establish what is right or wrong.
Perhaps the real danger is not in being moved by someone's story, but in allowing ourselves to believe that being moved is the same thing as being convinced.
A person can tell a genuinely heartbreaking story and still be wrong. Another person can present an uncomfortable truth without being especially sympathetic and still be right. Sometimes, both sides can be wrong. Sometimes, both sides can have legitimate grievances, and sometimes the people we instinctively identify with can be capable of doing terrible things.
Growing older has made me increasingly uncomfortable with the idea that every disagreement must have a morally pure side and a morally corrupt side. Reality is rarely that convenient.