An "emotional Vulcan" could have been portrayed as somebody who was Vulcan first, and emotional second.
Why? That undermines the point... which was rather abundant that Vulcans originally, embrace their emotions (for good or ill). I'm actually hard pressed how one can even make a distinction in this regard? How does one behave Vulcan first and emotional second? How does a human? What makes a Vulcan, Vulcan beyond biology? What does it mean to be Vulcan, that you shed your emotions? But Vulcans existed as emotional creatures before Surak and as far as I know were still Vulcans... so lack of emotions can't be a defining characteristic as all indications are that is a chosen state of being and a philosophy.
He even contradicted what we were always told about Vulcans--that they learned to suppress their emotions because they were such a violent people. An emotional Vulcan should be more of a scary bastard.
You're applying a rather binary process of thought to something that is more then likely rather nuanced. If Vulcans can have strong emotions to their detriment, they can also have strong positive emotions as well
The only contradiction is perhaps Sybok undermines an assumption you likely made (that many tend to make) about preSurak Vulcan and how the people of the planet conducted themselves before "logic" enlightened them.