[Meai]

In my opinion analogies should almost always be avoided. It is much more work to understand the analogy and map it back to the argument and if you are proposing the analogy you're asking the other debate partner to do all that work for you for free. Also you're asking him to be very gracious with your argument because of course the analogy is never a perfect fit. All while he's trying to win the same debate you are trying to win. So this is a recipe for anger and resentment. In 99.999% of cases, you should be able to explain something directly without the indirect approach via an analogy. Analogies may help in a teacher-subject system where both people know their role and the teacher is explaining very vast subjects very superficially.

[willhinsa]

> So this is a recipe for anger and resentment.

I know this is a common idiom and makes complete sense in context, but I must point out that it's also an analogy. I just thought it was genuinely funny given the first sentence of your comment. Analogies are hard to escape! :)

[awb]

My personal pet peeve is analogies that have no basis in reality: “It’s like sleeping on a cloud”. You’re trying to relate your experience to something that no one has ever experienced.

[dgellow]

I agree. I almost always feel that analogies make sense to the person saying them, but not to the person receiving. You often need to already know the topic at hand to understand why the analogy is relevant, but if you’re new to the subject it feels just confusing.