False dilemma occurs when a claim - usually a premise in a (perhaps otherwise valid deductive) argument - presents an artificial range of choices, e.g., two choices when there are really three or more.
If you claim that an argument involves false dilemma, however - the burden of proof is on you to show why the dilemma is false: be prepared to identify at least one additional, relevant option which is omitted in what you are arguing is a false dilemma. (Not every dilemma is false: many lights, for example, are either on or off; one is or is not pregnant, etc.)
Consider the following.
1. The homicide problem results from a decay in social and cultural values, not the availability of guns. Killings are indiscriminant. That is more a reflection on society's lack of values than anything else. Stricter gun control would not help: we must have a change in society's values.
2. 1) I'm not pro-abortion: (2) I'm pro-choice.
3. .what we witnessed in the Thomas confirmation hearings was a clash of two titanic, antithetical and irreconcilable views of the world. Russell Baker...writes that Clarence Thomas' nomination should have been fought out as a purely political question. "That question: What kind of Supreme Court does the country want?"
Russell implies that the court should serve as reflection of public opinion, an implication that ignores our historical roots.
Is the law founded on unchanging and absolute principles, or is it like shifting sands, blowing about with the winds of popular opinion?
Is it drawn from theistic or atheistic and humanistic foundations, from Mt. Sinai or from Harvard and Yale law schools?
-- Cal Thomas, "System reveals nature of the beast," News-Leader, Monday, Oct. 21, 1991, 4A.
4. Either you're for us or against us.
5. Either you love God or hate God.
6. Is this great or what?
7. Get in the car now! I don't have time to stand here all day! ([bad] logic is often an effective parenting tool...)
8. Are you getting up - or are you going to stay in bed all day like a lazy bum? (Note: while there is also name-calling here - what is this not an example of ad hominem?)
9. Either this book (preacher pointing to the Bible) is what it says it is - the inerrant, literal Word of God - or it's a sham, a hoax, and a waste of print and paper which should be burned as worse than useless.
10. We will either learn to live together as brothers and sisters - or, in a world of nuclear weapons available to any fanatic with money and a favored target, we will die together as fools.