In reality, there is a third option, one could very well be neutral; and a fourth option, one may be against both; and even a fifth option, one may empathize with elements of both.
I do not fully understand this False Dilemma, although the name does sound familiar. Is it trying to say that you narrow down the topic or exclude other options in your argument?
Rather than provide evidence to show that a conclusion follows from a set of premisses, which may provide a legitimate cause for fear, such arguments rely on rhetoric, threats or outright lies
The appeal to fear is something I have seen in many arguments throughout schooling, especially relating to call to action type of arguments. I could see them attempting to connect and draw some motivation from the audience through this however their use of it can become misleading. This is due to the fact that they are leaving their use as a hypothetical or even a threat to the readers rather than providing cause and effect type evidence to support their claims. This can make their attempts unsuccessful and seem like their argument is just made up.
How can you be against faith when we take leaps of faith all the time, with friends and potential spouses and investments? Here, the meaning of the word “faith” is shifted from a spiritual belief in a creator to a risky undertaking. A common invocation of this fallacy happens in discussions of science and religion, where the word “why” may be used in equivocal ways.
This term in specific as been seen and even critiqued in my writing. I think that this is due to the fact that may students and writers attempt to use more educational or specific words that we may not always understand how to use. By attempting to use them in new ways, we risk confusing the audience or writing an argument that has a meaning different from what we intended.
Straw Man
I think that I recognize this one. It talks about how it uses the action of attacking a certain thing rather than the argument itself. I think that it is a very immature way of arguing especially in a educational standpoint. The reason it is so misleading is that by using this, you are not strengthening or making any progress on the argument presented but instead just tearing down outside things and the opponents argument.