It would seem logical that allegory can have a place in an argument -- if only because it can be a tool to help all parties frame a point in a reference(s) they can each understand. But this means that the point gathered from the allegory can be objected to. However, as an allegory is apt to be an incomplete description or framing of the argument/point, how much further flawed does it become if we try to use the same allegory to respond in the original argument? At some point that allegory must either modify or be discarded.
Makes sense, but I think it may depend on the allowable tolerances for the application in question. The devil hides in the details, but sometimes the details are just noise. Estimating can be a useful tool.
Let me speak more plainly about my decision. The budget debate (like so many these days) is polarizing. Many, in my view, approach the budget topic from a highly partisan POV.
If there is a "shut down," it's my view that both sides of aisle will bear some degree of material fault. A number of posters in both camps seem
unshakeably certain that only the other camp bears even a modicum of fault. My concern was that expressing my view would result in both sides placing me squarely in the other's camp. As a consequence, my post would come to nothing; "a failure to communicate," as Strother Martin might say.
My thought was to remove both myself and my point from the immediate field of battle. That is, to improve the odds of communication by de-escalating the tension. Whether it worked at all depends on whether anyone was more receptive to the idea of shared responsibility after my post.
Incidentally, "the abyss" in the allegory was irrelevant to my point. It simply represents a consequence of intransigence. Personally, I find the rhetoric of fiscal doom to be self-indulgent in some cases and deliberate fear-mongering in others.