Policymakers instinctively rely on historical analogies. While powerful, this reliance is dangerous when based on simplistic or false comparisons like 'another Munich' or 'another Vietnam.' This makes rigorous, nuanced historical perspective essential to avoid repeating past mistakes driven by flawed parallels.

We unconsciously frame abstract concepts like 'argument is war' or 'a relationship is a journey' using concrete metaphors. These are not just figures of speech but core cognitive frameworks that dictate our approach to negotiation, conflict, and collaboration. Recognizing them is the first step to changing your perspective and outcome.

Dick Cheney justified harsh interrogation techniques not by downplaying them, but by reframing the debate as a stark moral choice. He posed a question: 'Are you going to ransom lives for your honor? Or are you going to do your job?' This rhetoric positioned torture as a necessary, albeit unpleasant, duty to prevent future attacks, rather than a legal or ethical violation.

Adults rarely change their minds on emotional issues through debate. Instead of arguing facts, create a positive, controlled personal experience related to the topic. This reframes their conceptual understanding, which is more effective than direct persuasion at shifting their position.

The famous Trolley Problem isn't just one scenario. Philosophers create subtle variations, like replacing the act of pushing a person with flipping a switch to drop them through a trapdoor. This isolates variables and reveals that our moral objection isn't just about physical contact, but about intentionally using a person as an instrument to achieve a goal.

Most arguments aren't a search for objective truth but an attempt to justify a pre-existing emotional state. People feel a certain way first, then construct a logical narrative to support it. To persuade, address the underlying feeling, not just the stated facts.

Under the theory of emotivism, many heated moral debates are not about conflicting fundamental values but rather disagreements over facts. For instance, in a gun control debate, both sides may share the value of 'boo innocent people dying' but disagree on the factual question of which policies will best achieve that outcome.

When a Klansman claimed Black people have a "violence gene," Daryl Davis didn't argue facts. Instead, he created an analogy that all white people have a "serial killer gene." This forced the Klansman to confront the absurdity of his own logic from the other side.

An administration's tactic of arguing whether a protest was a "riot" or if a victim was "resisting" is a deliberate trap. It forces opponents to debate legal technicalities, distracting from the undeniable moral atrocity of the act itself, which is visible to everyone.