What do to mean when you say “emotional argument”? I understand it as something like “an argument which rests on an appeal to an emotional experience” or similar.

For example a mathematical proof is not an emotional argument, as a being without any emotions would be able to verify it as true.

However “people don’t want to die, so you shouldn’t kill them” is an emotional argument as it fundamentally rests on the counterfactual “a person assumed to have qualia observing a universe in which they had been killed might experience negative valence”. Which only makes sense if the notion of another being you assume to have qualia being sad in a way which is impossible in reality upsets you.

I’ll try but please also be considerate of other users and the fact English isn’t everyone’s native language. English isn’t my first or only language. I will try my best but I will make this mistake often because this is difficult and I am not contributing to animal suffering because my native tongue doesn’t make this distinction at all.

This is nonsense. you should study philosophy and stop reading “rationalist” blogs.

Philosophy is based on logic, not straight emotions

Yeah, sorry, but that’s straight untrue.

As I wrote before, every time you’re doing a value judgement, you’re arguing based on emotions.

Saying shredding two animals causes more suffering than shredding no animals is a rational, provable statement. But whether suffering is bad or not, is a value judgement and thus not rational.

If you say, “I don’t like suffering” to someone with a “no pain, no gain” shirt, your argument is weaker.

And both of these statements are value judgement, you’re doing a category error here.