When a conversation becomes an argument, the Argument is War metaphor can start to structure experience, understanding, and problem-solving.
The sequence (Lakoff and Johnson, chapter 15) begins:
> If you are engaged in a conversation [...] and you perceive it as turning into an argument, what is it that you perceive over and above being in a conversation? The basic difference is a sense of being embattled.
In the Distributed Logjam metaphor for concepts, that means particular networks will be activated – that's what it means to "feel embattled." That activates the War network, which activates (or is part of activating) the Argument is War metaphor /network.
> We experience a conversation as an argument when the War Gestalt fits our perceptions and actions in the conversation. (p. 81)
> It is in terms of imposing the Conversation gestalt on what is happening that we experience the talking and listening that we engage in as a particular *kind* of experience, namely, a conversation. When we perceive Dimensions of our experience as fitting the War gestalt in addition, we become aware that we are participating in another *kind* of experience, namely, an argument. (p. 83)
You can now reason about the argument using warfare as the Source Domain. Will you surrender (concede the argument)? Try for victory? Give up on the conversation (stalemate)? You begin to *marshall* the points you'll *deploy* as you *attack* his *positions*.