This study investigates how context and emotional tone metadata influence large language model (LLM) reasoning and performance in fallacy classification tasks, particularly within political debate settings. Using data from U.S. presidential debates, we classify six fallacy types through various prompting strategies applied to the Qwen-3 (8B) model. We introduce two theoretically grounded Chain-of-Thought frameworks: Pragma-Dialectics and the Periodic Table of Arguments, and evaluate their effectiveness against a baseline prompt under three input settings: text-only, text with context, and text with both context and audio-based emotional tone metadata. Results suggest that while theoretical prompting can improve interpretability and, in some cases, accuracy, the addition of context and especially emotional tone metadata often leads to lowered performance. Emotional tone metadata biases the model toward labeling statements as \textit{Appeal to Emotion}, worsening logical reasoning. Overall, basic prompts often outperformed enhanced ones, suggesting that attention dilution from added inputs may worsen rather than improve fallacy classification in LLMs.