{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,11]],"date-time":"2026-02-11T06:09:46Z","timestamp":1770790186590,"version":"3.50.0"},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Walter de Gruyter GmbH","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2014,3,1]],"date-time":"2014-03-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1393632000000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/3.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2014,3,1]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>Dialectical fallacies are typically defined as breaches of the rules of a regulated discussion between two participants (di-logue). What if discussions become more complex and involve multiple parties with distinct positions to argue for (poly-logues)? Are there distinct argumentation norms of polylogues? If so, can their violations be conceptualized as polylogical fallacies? I will argue for such an approach and analyze two candidates for argumentative breaches of multi-party rationality: false dilemma and collateral straw man.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.2478\/slgr-2014-0010","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2014,5,21]],"date-time":"2014-05-21T08:59:24Z","timestamp":1400662764000},"page":"193-218","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":16,"title":["Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies"],"prefix":"10.2478","volume":"36","author":[{"given":"Marcin","family":"Lewi\u0144ski","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Universidade Nova de Lisboa"}]}],"member":"374","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2014,4,12]]},"container-title":["Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/content.sciendo.com\/view\/journals\/slgr\/36\/1\/article-p193.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.sciendo.com\/pdf\/10.2478\/slgr-2014-0010","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,11]],"date-time":"2026-02-11T01:10:43Z","timestamp":1770772243000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.sciendo.com\/article\/10.2478\/slgr-2014-0010"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2014,3,1]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2014,4,12]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2014,3,1]]}},"alternative-id":["10.2478\/slgr-2014-0010"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2478\/slgr-2014-0010","relation":{},"ISSN":["0860-150X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0860-150X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2014,3,1]]}}}