And maybe the argument is genuinely so right that most humans upon hearing it would agree to not exist, something like collectively sacrificing ourselves for our collective children.
This describes an argument that is persuasive; your described scenario does not require the argument to be right. (Indeed my view is that the argument would obviously be wrong, as it would be arguing for a false conclusion.)
Is this a real example or one that you’ve made up? That is, do you actually have cases in mind where someone discovered valuable and neglected epistemic rationality techniques in the course of doing paperwork?