In this theoretical paper (accepted as poster) we present a case study on political simulations and their interactive narrative design as means to explore different perspectives and decisions in complex situations. We propose using such artefacts in classroom settings for their potential ability to represent spaces of debate, including pragmatic aspects of argumentation. We look at Mission Zhobia-a free online training tool for peacebuilders-and its multi-linear approach to teaching procedural skills through interactive dialogues with multiple stakeholders. Learners take on the role of a country director sent to the fictional African country Zhobia, tasked with rebuilding its justice system. The different stakeholders, as simulated characters, offer arguments while showing emotions and trust or mistrust based on learners' interactions, thus adding to a meaningful, convincing, and engaging learning environment. Learners' decisions have political and societal impact which is depicted via character reactions and newspaper articles. This enactive roleplaying allows learners to gauge the space of debate as they experience first-hand complex cause and effect relationships, under simulated pressure, but ultimately in a safe setting. Furthermore, such simulations invite experimentation and replay with different strategies, broadening the insight into the complexity of the task for which they train. We propose that narrative simulations should be developed to be used and studied further also in classroom settings. They can serve as an insightful starting point for debates, bringing in different perspectives on simulated conflicts, and allowing learners to experience and understand the importance of emotions and values as part and parcel of argumentatio