No -- we have wars, arguments, and negotiations when individuals or groups disagree about things. All of these things are human activities that we use to settle a disagreement.
Dance, meanwhile, has nothing to do with disagreements or making a decision about how things will be. A dance resolves nothing; it's something people do for fun. It's silly to assert that we can simply "think of X as being like Y" and that will make it so. Sadly that is Lakoff's thesis.
A dance is a kind of negotiation. The "decision about how things will be" is what move should be performed next. Success is achieved by both parties, or neither - never just one or the other - and may even entail a "surrender" on the part of one of them.
The entire point is that metaphors can emphasize different aspects. This metaphor emphasizes ideas like:
-disagreements are not zero sum
-coming to a consensus is more important than getting your way
-we are ultimately all on the same side
-be graceful - carefully choose your moment to assert yourself
The suggestion of using metaphors for existential framing is nonsensical when one thinks of the ends of the activities, but it makes plenty of sense when one applies it to the process instead.
In a negotiation, as long as I know my boundaries and my decision calculus, then approaching it playfully and in a way that brings the other person into the game is a very constructive (and frankly fun) route. This is what is meant by dance rather than fight.
That's an improvement but is it what Lakoff meant? I don't know -- I read the book years ago but I very much got the sense that his argument was "words have no inherent meaning, essentially all meaning is circular, and so we can think of X as being like Y just as easily as Z".
Imagine that you know you are the author of that, but also you just woke up with amnesia and are now trying to figure out why you wrote that book and what did you mean there.
Dance, meanwhile, has nothing to do with disagreements or making a decision about how things will be. A dance resolves nothing; it's something people do for fun. It's silly to assert that we can simply "think of X as being like Y" and that will make it so. Sadly that is Lakoff's thesis.