Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies

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 blackmores ache relief focus review 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: coq-clear 100 ubiquinol false dilemma and collateral straw man.