Middle Ground Fallacy
The middle ground fallacy assumes that a position becomes true, fair, or wise simply because it sits between two opposing views. It mistakes balance for judgment. A midpoint can be practical in some negotiations, but it has no automatic claim on truth.
The error matters most when the two sides are not morally symmetrical. If one side is defending an injustice, splitting the difference may only preserve a smaller portion of that injustice. A compromise can still be wrong. This is why the fallacy is stronger in ethical and political conflicts than in ordinary disputes about resources or implementation details.
The key question is not whether a view is moderate. It is whether the positions being averaged are both legitimate starting points for compromise. When one side is false, abusive, or dehumanizing, standing in the middle can amount to polite complicity.
Sources
See also: critical-thinking-and-logical-fallacies for how this fallacy fits alongside the full pattern of argument failures.