Dichotomies

Dichotomy (dī-kŏt'ə-mē) n. 1. Division into two usually contradictory parts or opinions. (The American Heritage Dictionary, Second Collegiate Edition)

False dichotomy, false dilemma, false choice fallacy, fallacy of the excluded middle, etc. The erroneous presentation of a matter as an either-or proposition when it is not in fact such a thing.

Examples
Facts vs. beliefs: Dichotomy. Facts are those objective realities that exist regardless of individual belief or popular acceptance. People tend to cling to their beliefs in spite of the facts, rather than because of them. Patriotism, partisanship, and propaganda rely on manipulation of belief, the facts be damned. This is why so many arguments about politics so quickly devolve to fallacy-spewing hatefests. Beliefs are so personal that contradiction is perceived as a personal attack.

Facts vs. interpretation: Dichotomy. Many people claim their interpretation of facts automatically disqualifies any alternate interpretations because they claim ownership of both the facts and the interpretation, disallowing any room for dispute. However, facts are verifiable, while interpretation is often open to dispute. New facts come to light and new analysis methods are developed. Claiming that one interpretation of the facts holds ownership over those facts is bad for rational discussion. Be wary of conflating an interpretation of facts with facts themselves, and be aware that subjective interpretation of facts is distinct from objective facts themselves.

Consent vs. coercion: Dichotomy. Coercion only applies when consent is withheld. Consent must be mutual and voluntary. Compliance under duress is not consent. For example, giving a mugger your wallet is not a voluntary gift, it's theft because he threatens to harm you if you don't comply. On the other hand, declining to participate in an exchange is not coercion. If someone refuses to interact with someone else, it is not coercion.

Civilization vs. Government: As Murray Rothbard said, "The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State." This is a false dichotomy, and is especially popular with apologists for a given political regime, but can also be used by opponents of the majority party who seek the power held by the majority. "But without government, we would collapse into a Mad Max dystopia," they say. The facts of history are twisted through bizarre interpretations to whitewash the wars and police state abuses that plague favored governments as justifiable or even nonexistent while magnifying the threat of other governments that are out of favor.

Anarchy vs. order: False dichotomy, and directly related to the one above. Anarchy means "no rulers," not "no rules." Society functions because people create order through voluntary association. The rules of human society are discovered, not dictated from above. Government creates chaos by imposing arbitrary rules upon others through coercive force. This results in violent black markets, police abuse of innocents, and global war. Again, the historical record is rather clear on this matter, but the facts are reinterpreted to support the ruling regimes. When some people claim the right to rule others through coercive force, chaos in opposition to civilization is the result. Disorder ensues because of government, and order exists in spite of it.

Do you disagree with my interpretations of facts and my beliefs? Is there a severe typo or miscategorization? Am I rambling on and on about stuff that doesn't matter to you? Comment below!