This document discusses different strategies for emotional argumentation, including appeals to emotion through word choice, rhetorical figures, and framing. It provides examples of each: word associations that elicit different emotional responses (e.g. "tax relief" vs. "tax cuts"); rhetorical figures like antithesis and tricolon that use parallel structures for emphasis; and different frames for an issue that are designed to elicit different emotional views (e.g. framing graffiti writers as terrorists, artists, or a crack in infrastructure). It emphasizes that emotional argument works best when tapping into audiences' existing hopes, fears, values or sense of identity.