r/philosophy has this in their "A Guide to Arguments" page:

Logical Fallacies -----------------

I’d like to close with some brief comments on invoking logical fallacies. These fallacies are essentially shortcuts through logical space that pick out common failures in constructing valid arguments without digging into the logical machinery at work. However, like most shortcuts, invoking fallacies means missing out on the complete picture of the argument and it can very well be the case that stating the logical errors explicitly (i.e. premise two does not entail premise three, etc) can expose helpful implicit premises or make it clear to your opponent how, precisely, his or her argument fails. These things are both important to charity and helpful to informative discussion about an argument. For these reasons and others, we recommend against invoking popular logical fallacies against an argument in favor of spelling out and objecting to arguments in more robust ways.

I love that page, and actually really dislike fallacy-based argumentation. I was trying to be snarky.

Right, the fallacy of the excluded middle is a particular kind of argument to moderation.

EDIT: nope, I mis-remembered argument to moderation. Sigh.

Wrong. They are opposites.

You are absolutely, 100% correct. Whoah. My bad.

That's what I get for trying to be snarky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy