You’re missing the point, and will argue against anything I toss up.

Advocating for a middle ground is often good. But sometimes it’s fruitless.

Someone decides the want your stuff. Halfway is giving them half your stuff. Tomorrow they want the other half.

So your left with, give up everything or nothing. Take a stand or don’t.

I can see your point, but you have yet to support it with a valid example. I would not argue with you if you had valid examples.

I never said half or halfway. I said the best answer often lies between opposing positions. You are continually changing the subject and creating strawman arguments which do not reflect what I'm actually saying.

The example of someone wanting your things does not have enough background about the circumstances to fully explore. In the context of taxes, there could be a middle ground. In the context of a lawsuit, there very often is a middle ground. In the context of a robbery, the situation does not reflect two arguments in a venue that promotes discussion and it involves someone breaking the law and widely established societal structure, so it doesn't meet the elements of a philosophical discussion.

Your second to last sentence is a slippery slope fallacy unless you can support it with data.

Your last sentence illustrates my original premise - western thinking tends to pick one side or the other rather than meaningfully evaluate thwboptions that lie between the opposing positions.