This is a weak approach. Want proof? Watch a great chick flick, then watch a standard made-for-TV movie. Which one engages your emotions, and why? A talented filmmaker with a good cast will portray situations that raise emotions in viewers. But watch all the long closeups in the hack show where a character is supposed to be thinking something. No one moves, no one says anything, we have to fill in the feelings for ourselves, and guess the thoughts of the characters. On the sitcom Friends, the character Joey Tribiani describes this as "smell the fart acting." Make a face as if you are wondering where the odor is coming from, and let the viewer fill in the blanks.
If you've got a real case for your position you don't need to coerce our feelings. Just make your case with evidence and examples and let us react. I didn't know what a puppy mill was until one of my students spoke on it for a class assignment. Briefly, a puppy mill confines breeding females in tiny cages and breeds them until they die. Often the puppies are unhealthy. Dealers who sell puppy mill puppies guarantee their health, not because they are healthy but because they'll gladly give you another if yours dies.
When I learned this I had emotions, and when I repeat it to my students they experience the same emotions. But notice that I did not use the language of emotions, any more than great comedians spend their time saying things like "this is really funny," or "you're gonna laugh at this one..."
If you've got a good case to make, do so. If you can convince me you are right your work is done. But my emotions will change frequently. Don't rely on them.
