The rhetorical trick equivalent to the middle ground fallacy

AKA trust me I am not a partisen so my judgement is good.

I have noticed that there are a variety speech and debate tricks that people use that are not exactly fallacies because there is no logical flaw, yet they are just to convince people during speeches or debates by manipulating the social context of the debate. I like learning/naming these because they help you spot manipulative arguments as well as faulty ones.

One named one is the "Gish Gallop" which you can look up if you don't know it butthat is not what I am talking about here.

The one i want to know the name of is the rhetorical trick where someone tries to look more credible, fair or lucid by hating or liking both sides of a disagreement where it is not established the two sides are equivalent.

Example,

I listen to scientists on both sides of the global warming and evolution debates and the only think we can say for certain is that there are a lot of unknowns.

Or

I know this herbal cream will cure you infection because i am someone who listens to both doctors and alternative healers and then picks the best from each.

Or

I listened to the republican debates last night and all those guys are crazy and i say this despite the fact i hate democrats.

Or

I follow common sense spirituality that says you know in your heart there is a personal God; I hate Atheists and Chisrtians both because they are extremists.

So its basically where you pretend to your audience your judgment is good, because you are not a partisen as if partisen bias is the only judgement problem you could have.

is there a name for this rhetorical trick (I am not a partisen therefore you can trust my judgement). If not, what should we call it?