Y U NO? (2-16) Stoicism

Our group had the rather boring topic of Stoics this session. The Stoics have this concept that all emotion is useless in life, and that ideally, humans use logic and reason to reach any sort of enlightenment. Emotions are considered to hold a person back by causing suffering, and the
Stoics choose to purge all of their feelings for thoughts.

We agreed that this is not a good way to live. While emotions can be harmful when in the extremes, it's easier to learn to control them than to eliminate them altogether. We agreed that some emotions are unnecessary in a lot of situations, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't have a place elsewhere in life. It was then brought up that we can pick and choose how to feel, and that we can learn to be less angry or less of an emotion instead of getting rid of it.

It is also just as counterproductive to get rid of all emotions as it is to immerse oneself in emotion. The conclusion is that we all need to find our middle grounds for emotions, and learn to balance them with logic and reason.

This discussion was not as interesting as some of the others for us. There was universal agreement that emotions are clearly important, and Stoicism is silly.
(It is important for me to mention that we did bring up the fact that certain psychological disorders cause a lack of emotion, or an unnatural apathy. We are not considering these in Stoicism, as it is a practice.)

Factual question:
What is the philosophical ideal of the Stoics summarized as?
Answer: Apathy

Discussion question(s):
Are emotions irrational judgments, or are they necessary for humanity?
-and-
Can someone truly eliminate all traces of emotion? How?

(And some more: Is there a correlation between the amount of knowledge someone has to their amount of emotion? Does emotion fade with knowledge or inversely, knowledge with emotion?)