The inverse of the "Black-and-White" Fallacy, the "Middle-Ground" Fallacy occurs when an arguer, in an attempt to avoid taking a polarizing, black-or-white stance (even if a polarizing response is, in fact, the correct response), finds a safe but fallacious middle-ground stance. This is commonly done by news media as they try to find the balance between "fair and balanced" reporting and getting to the sometimes painful or polarizing truth of a situation.
This can be a dangerous fallacy to ignore because it can permit an inaccurate status quo to continue and become widely accepted as truth even when it is completely wrong.
Example: "Some argue that a suspension bridge that directly connects Hai Phong with Manila needs to be constructed. Others argue that no such bridge should be made. Therefore, we should just build a bridge halfway to Manila.
This may seem ridiculous, but, maybe, a more realistic example could be about funding a social program. Maybe funding it halfway won't do anything to fix the issue, so it either needs to be not funded or fully funded. Maybe something like funding the construction of a new hospital. You can't do it halfway.
Example: "Vu wanted to touch the fire because he said that fire is cold. Nhi said he shouldn't because it is hot. So, they compromised and said it was lukewarm, and Vu burned off his hand."
This may seem like a dumb example, but, again, think of this in terms of a political or social stance.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
Example: "Holly said that vaccinations caused autism in children, but her scientifically well-read friend Caleb said that this claim had been debunked and proven false. Their friend Alice offered a compromise that vaccinations must cause some autism, just not all autism."
From: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground
Example: THE IMAGE AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE
(I'm not endorsing the article below it, nor am I endorsing the organization that produced this webpage. The image; however, demonstrates the fallacy well.)