In Indian/Sanskrit literary theory (poetics), in the discussion of figures of speech (rhetoric, etc), similes are called upamā ("her face is like the moon", etc). The discussion of it in the literature is extensive and would fill several volumes (and I hardly know anything), but one thing recognized early is that in a simile/analogy, there needs to be a sādharaṇa-dharma, a shared property: the point is that there's something in common ("her face is beautiful, like the moon") while of course there is going to be a lot that is not (the intended meaning is not "like the moon, her face is pockmarked, full of craters", etc). In any given instance, this intended shared property may either be stated explicitly, in which case the simile is called "complete", or left implicit, in which case it's called "partial". Both can be highly effective.
In the context of this post, it seems that when making an argument, it may help for the analogy to be "complete": actually spell out what you intend by the analogy. Also, to echo the comment by @munificent, it is worth remembering that figures of speech are very effective as poetry, but poetry requires a sensitive and sympathetic reader (sahṛdaya). The same rhetoric can fail when used in argument with an unsympathetic audience.
That is because analogies are only useful for illustration, not as a chain of reasoning to prove something.
Conversations almost universally become low quality once analogies are brought in. They should be used sparingly, and explicitly only for the purpose of illustrating an idea.
1. It can reduce the problem space to the factors which the parties see as important.
2. It can uncover differences of opinion as to which factors are deemed important to the problem space. ie: "yeah, but your analogy discounts x!".
Of course, analogies can be used in bad faith as rhetorical tools to win an argument on grounds other than it's merits, and that is the real problem with them.
E.g., it's going to come off as condescending if you try to "educate" someone on something where they already have a formed opinion and don't see you as an authority.
I often just mention that definition. I actually get really far by avoiding certain polarizing words and just saying the definition of the word. Flies right under the radar.
I’d never thought about it such explicit terms, but of course using analogies with an unsympathetic interlocutor is basically building them a all-too-convenient strawman
I appreciate the self referential nature of using an analogy to describe analogies.
They appear on IQ tests. Some are easier than others.
When making an analogy, you should try to work out if it’s an easy one or a hard one, to judge how much work you’re making your audience do.