This study explores the impact of emotions on reasoning in the context of a contentious debate about criminal legislation in Brazil. It challenges the notion that deliberation should be purely rational by introducing a new analytical framework that examines how emotions such as anger, indignation, fear, and compassion influence reasoned claims. Using correlational and content analyses, the research finds that emotions significantly correlate with argumentation direction, shape perspectives of reasoning, and are consistent across different forum designs. The study highlights the interplay between emotion and rationality and offers methodological insights into studying emotional dynamics in deliberative contexts.