You took the metaphor explaining a part of the original argument, not the argument itself, a metaphor used to illustrate the argument better, a metaphor that was just there to make a point clearer, then you expanded it needlessly and painfully for all involved, muddled it a great deal, turned it around and attacked the original point. With a metaphor. That you used way past its place of purpose.

I actually have no idea where this tactic should even be on the hierarchy of disagreement. It's shockingly effective in practice though - you're basically redefining the meaning of the words I use for your own purpose. I can't disagree with you, because I'm trying to say something which cannot be exactly defined, leading me to use metaphors or allegories or other kinds of inexact language, but whenever I say something like this you switch it around so it now doesn't mean what I intend it to mean. I literally lack the words with which to disagree in this situation.