Actual Discussion

Emotion is short-cut that has evolutionary strength. Overthinking things can be highly maladaptive. Consider seeing a tiger making a run for you and your group. Reasoning through (or, worse, discussing) your options is going to get everybody in your group killed because the process of reasoning is far slower than the reaction speed of emotion. Fear, on the other hand, will have everybody in the group scattering, running away screaming.

In the first case everybody (or almost everybody) in your group dies. This is maladaptive. In the second case one, maybe two die. This is far more adaptive behaviour.

Later there's room for reasoning: figuring out ways to arm yourself against tigers, say, or building traps to capture/kill them, or finding better places to go where there are no tigers. But in the moment, reason kills.

Similar things go with concepts like lust and love. Sure you can think through and discuss all the reasons why it would be best to have procreative sex, but … ah … there's plenty of "local optimization" trouble that makes it more practical not to procreate and let others do the procreation (until nobody is procreating and the species dies out). The emotion of lust comes to the rescue as your instincts override your reason and you make the beast with two backs, thus procreating. Which leads us to the advantage of love. In this case let's address the parent/child love bond. Again, children are an inconvenience and any reasonable person, courtesy of the local optimization problem, will likely come to the conclusion that abandoning the child is the smart thing to do. But dammit, they're so cute, D'aw!, and she's got her mother's eyes and her father's hair and look! She just puked! Isn't that cute!? (Parents are literally insane; partially by sleep deprivation, but mostly by emotion.)

I don't believe there can be any sensible position which doesn't consider both emotion and logic based on what's appropriate in the circumstance. The trick is knowing how to weight one versus the other.

Suppose you are a woman who has been dating a new guy. He's smart and kind, wealthy, and has amazing parents. Logic says he'd be a perfect husband, but you just don't feel any spark or love at all. Should you marry him? No, probably not. It's super important to trust your emotions here, because logic by itself isn't going to make you happy.

Then suppose you are a 55 year old hiring manager at an IT firm. A candidate comes in for an interview. He's a young black guy and your emotions immediately tell you (due to decades of ingrained prejudice) that he's not a good fit. Should you save time and cut the interview short? No. You should override your feelings with logic, and recognise he has just as much potential as any other candidate.

Logic and emotion are super important, we just have to use them for the right things in the context of our modern world.

I am strongly in the logic camp, though both can be used to great effect if the person understands themselves and can apply logic to emotion in advance. Emotions override or preempt logic and prevent us from thinking rationally in many cases. It harms FAR more than it helps, and is essentially a knee-jerk reaction executed before we can think.

This is why many people are the way they are. They react to something, and THEN try to apply a logical process to the reaction as if there was one.

Why are people overweight in most cases? Logic or emotion?

When people try to manipulate others, are the lies generally emotionally manipulative, or logically manipulative?

Why do people stay in bad relationships? It could conceivably be either, but most often it's emotional and / or a "better than nothing" response.

Why are people religious in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? They're raised to think that way and instead of using logic, they rely on emotion and the way it makes them feel.

Why do people not try to change things in their life that they'd very much like to? Because change is difficult, which is an emotional response. You have to apply logic and reason to cause change because emotion makes it hard to adjust routine.

I could go on and on, but I would posit that emotion (anger, covetousness, lust, pettiness, etc.) is responsible for more self-sabotage and destruction than any logic.

Empathy is a moral response, and morality is subjective. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be empathetic, it simply means that what it means to be empathetic at the very core is completely arbitrary.

This doesn't mean they can't overlap or be used effectively, but often they are at odds and faulty logic is used to justify the initial emotional response.

As an addendum, from my experience people are horrible at distinguishing between the two responses.