History Main / ChewbaccaDefense

* In Creator/TheCoenBrothers' ''TheManWhoWasntThere'', ace lawyer Freddy Riedenschnieder seems to base his career on this. His defense of the protagonist's wife involves a truly baffling spiel about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, while his defense of the protagonist himself involves some weird, vaguely existentialist drivel about him being a "New Man" in a modern, morally ambiguous world and thus presumably he isn't responsible. Unfortunately it gets interrupted.
* Most of ''BeeMovie'' uses this for comedy.
* In ''AnimalHouse'', Otter somehow turns the charges against the Deltas for having sex with their drunk party guests into an attack on the fraternity system, which is an attack on college, which is an attack on America. Then all the Deltas march out humming ''The Star-Spangled Banner''.
** [[SubvertedTrope This does not help in the least.]]
** [[DoubleSubversion The Deltas don't really care.]]
* A prime example is the movie ''ListenToMe'', where the debates got so convoluted, that you didn't know if either team was for or against abortion. It starts off with the protagonist's team being against abortion, and ends up with them being ''for'' it in the ''same debate''.
* Surprisingly enough, it actually happened to ''Franchise/StarWars'' with Chewbacca himself. It's in the special features of the DVD set. When Creator/GeorgeLucas proved too difficult for [[ExecutiveMeddling the executives to meddle with]] (thanks to Alan Ladd, Jr.), they turned to a different approach: "But the Wookiee has no pants!" knowing that changing that would require re-shooting a ''lot'' of scenes, which would put Lucas severely over budget. Thankfully, that didn't work either.
* ''MiracleOnThirtyFourthStreet'' this man had the post office send him letters addressed to Santa Claus so clearly ladies and gentlemen he must be Santa Claus because the post office is so awesome. Also shame on you for [[MoralEventHorizon trying to have him committed into an asylum!]]
** Not so much that the post office is awesome, as the argument that the post office is part of the US government, and if they recognize the man as Santa, it must be true (at least as far as the courts are concerned).

** Best part? [[spoiler:She turns out to be ''his mother''!]]

** Which is parodied by Creator/StephenColbert of ''Series/TheColbertReport'', who uses several variations of this when arguing with his guests, such as asking them why they hate America, and bombarding them with foolish overblown questions. He's even done this when arguing with ''himself'', creating circular arguments along the lines of the following: If you were sent to Gitmo unfairly, you'd be angry enough at the government to want to overthrow it, and hence you'd deserve to be sent to Gitmo.

* An episode of ''Law & Order: SVU'' in which Detective Benson investigates the role of an Army-administered drug (I think for malaria) in triggering assaults committed by veterans. During the trial, the military officer defending the Army accuses her of hating American soldiers, rather than challenging her on the evidence.
* Played for drama in one {{Suits}} episode, where Donna is on mock-trial in the firm for perjury for covering up for Harvey and Louis is playing the prosecutor. His ArmorPiercingQuestion: "Do you love Harvey Specter?", which he repeats over and over again until Donna breaks down and runs out. Louis wasn't doing it out of spite, however, and explains in his TheReasonYouSuckSpeech to Harvey that in a real court case the prosecuting lawyer would use the same dirty tactics.

* Painfully used on ''{{Monk}}'' in "Mr. Monk Takes the Stand" ([=S08E05=]) with Jay Mohr's role as attorney Harrison Powell while defending [[spoiler: Evan Gildea, accused of murdering his wife]]: "Does this piece fit? What about ''this'' piece?" And the guy actually ''wins''.
** To clarify, a large piece of the evidence was a slab of marble that Gildea [[spoiler:smashed apart and distributed across his driveway to use as an alibi]]. Powell brings in a wheelbarrow of said marble, claiming that if Monk's theory held up the pieces would fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, which he "disproved" by randomly selecting pieces and holding them together. To be fair, though, the case was probably lost through Powell discrediting Monk by citing his psychological instability, which Monk unknowingly supports by fiddling with his microphone for a long length of time, climbing out of the witness stand to put the marble together himself, and, purportedly, screaming "Mayday!" after realizing he was losing. It was a lucky break for Powell that he managed that, because his reasoning with the smashed marble was a case of InsaneTrollLogic. Powell's logic: if the accused, Gildea, had destroyed the marble slab that was his alibi, then why not put it back together like a puzzle? This makes no sense: anyone who works in construction might be aware that the vibrations of a jackhammer break up marble into lots of smaller pieces and each piece is significantly different than each other. Had the prosecution had someone like an iron worker to explain this, Powell would have lost because his "argument" would have been found bogus. Instead it was Monk who was being questioned, and we see how well that went. Even if it ''was'' like a giant puzzle, since when would two random pieces of a huge puzzle have more than an infinitesimal chance of fitting together? It's like he shook a box of nuts and bolts and metal sheets, noticed they failed to assemble themselves into something, and concluded that engineering is impossible.

** The US Senate's filibuster rule ''is'' this trope in a nutshell.

* In ''Series/TheBigBangTheory'', Sheldon proves an exemplar of this. He gets into an argument with Stuart, the comic book store manager (about which Robin would make a better replacement Batman). They argue for hours, until Stuart says that he's tired of it and going home. They have this exchange:
-->'''Sheldon:''' Then I win.
-->'''Stuart:''' No, it's late and I'm tired.
-->'''Sheldon:''' Then... I win.
-->'''Stuart:''' Fine, you win.
-->'''Sheldon:''' Darn right I win.
** His friends often don't even bother trying to argue, such is Sheldon's committed use of this trope. Leonard even admits to knuckling under as a matter of policy. On one occasion we clearly see the aftermath of such a defense, with Leonard tiredly saying 'Three of us voted to go by plane, Sheldon voted to go by train, so we're taking the train'.

* The "Chosen" episode of ''Series/LawAndOrder''.

* From ''Radio/TheHitchhikersGuideToTheGalaxy'' (original radio show):

* In ''VideoGame/MassEffect2'', you have the option of using this at Tali's trial. While you can use more honest methods of defense, this is the only method that saves Tali from exile ''and'' gets you Tali's loyalty. Also, Shepard's Chewbacca Defense, while failing to address the charges against Tali, is based around the accurate point that [[KangarooCourt the judges are pursuing their political agendas through this case and don't care what happens to Tali]].
** The Paragon speech options also offer its own variant of the ChewbaccaDefense, by arguing that Tali's character makes her incapable of being guilty by means of the hundreds of Geth she destroyed in the first game. It works.
** This nicely outlines the differences between Paragon and Renegade: Renegade!Shep will call the court out for their "political bullshit" (using those precise words), while Paragon!Shep uses their political bullshit against them by pointing out that Tali is the biggest hero of their race - exiling her would look ''really bad''.
** The admirals all privately admit that none of them want to exile Tali, and that at worst they believe Tali made a mistake; Tali is just caught up in their factional struggles (between those that want to attack the Geth to retake their homeworld, and those that want to give up the war and attempt to colonize a new planet). By exposing their ulterior motives, the admirals no longer can justify basing their judgement on politics and thus let Tali off on the grounds that her actions did not constitute treason. Essentially, this ChewbaccaDefense was designed to make the judges act on the letter of the law instead of external factors, somewhat inverting the usual intent of the trope.

* ''SengokuBasara'': "[[MemeticMutation My horse is a motorbike. Your argument is invalid.]]"

** This particular case was also a bit unethical of Cicero, as the personal attacks he used to such great effect were on the sister of Publius Clodius Pulcher; Clodius and Cicero hated each other, so it wasn't at all difficult for Cicero to lambast the Clodii. Additionally, Clodius and some of his family did not have the most savory reputation at the time, so the personal attacks were effective as an appeal to existing prejudices more than to justice.

* In the court scene of ''{{Oklahoma}}'', about Curly not being taken to the Police:

* The song "He is an Englishman" from ''Theatre/HMSPinafore'' is one.

* Most of the examples [[http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm here]] are spoofs of the Chewbacca Defense. The list could itself be perceived as a straight example when someone tries to use it as proof that God does not exist. (And that, itself, is actually on the list.) Parts of its "real" counterpart, "Why Atheism?", could also be counted (for example, the seventh paragraph, which basically says that religion is bad because Aristotle was given virtually all credit for ancient science/math/etc, and he was wrong about gravity).

* Pretty much any forum out there on the internet (politics, religion, video games, etc.) will see this happen at some point. Or at many points. [[OpinionMyopia If someone believes they are right, they will fight to the death to make other forum members know that his opponent is dead wrong.]] Saying something like "I have to go to bed" or "I have to take a shower now" usually makes the opposition think they won by default because you supposedly "chickened out" or "are admitting defeat", even though you may really mean to leave to do something else more important. But hey, a FlameWar is SeriousBusiness!
** Of course, if the one USING the Chewbacca defense (AKA the one spouting the non-sense) says the sentence, it's usually a sign of their defeat because they cannot win against logic. Sadly, this version happens much more seldom than the example above.
** A lot of internet discussions will also end the moment someone calls the opposing side a [[GodwinsLaw Nazi]], racist, homophobe, sexist or some other derogatory name. It's designed to cut off any further communication because the opponent certainly doesn't want to be seen in that light. And let's not forget ''I don't wish to discuss this any further''.
** It is also acceptable to say whatever one may want, no matter how irritating, insulting, and, well, fucked-up it is, but the moment one's opponent shows anger, one can just say U MAD? and one may exult in victory.
* Godwin's Law states that as any internet debate rages on, the probability of one side comparing the other side to Hitler gets closer and closer to one. Between reasonable, intelligent people who know what they're talking about? Not a problem. On the Internet, which is practically the homeland of insane people who have no clue about what they're talking about? Guaranteed. The "Hitler rule," a universal Internet rule established based on Godwin's Law, dictates that once the Godwin Point has been reached, the person who referenced Hitler or the Nazis has automatically lost the debate and there is to be no further discussion on the subject. A corollary to the rule, incidentally, holds that invoking Godwin's Law intentionally because you're sick of debating never works. It should be noted that the Hitler Rule itself also fits nicely into the category of a ChewbaccaDefense. "This person mentioned Hitler, therefore their argument is false" doesn't really fly.
* [[http://yourargumentisinvalid.com/ This site]] is dedicated to collecting {{image macro}}s of these.
* The comedy styling of IMAO are almost all based around this (such as nuking the moon for world peace).

* Linkara, on ''WebVideo/AtopTheFourthWall'' uses this in the form of 'because the kool-aid man is red' as an excuse for poor writing.
* {{Website/Cracked}}'s take on [[http://www.cracked.com/video_18297_stuff-that-must-have-happened-pitching-mt.-rushmore.html how Mt. Rushmore got approval]] had the proponent of carving 3 President's heads (Lincoln was added to seal the deal) using this to leverage his position.

* In some religiously skeptical communities, this kind of argument is also known as a [[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop Gish Gallop]], named after Creationist, biochemist, and professional debater Duane Gish, who is known to be a fan of using the Chewbacca Defense against evolutionists. His typical method of winning debates is making sure he is the first to speak, rapidly firing off a massive number of points of questionable scientific validity which his opponent couldn't possibly have time to address individually, and claiming a win if as few as one of his arguments remain unaddressed.
** Creationist arguments, such as those used by Duane Gish, can result in plenty of InsaneTrollLogic. However, some arguments are capable of turning even insane troll logic UpToEleven. For example, saying "Evolution isn't true because a cat has never given birth to a dog," is not only nonsense, [[{{Strawman}} as evolution makes no such claims]], but it [[EpicFail actually goes even further]], because a cat giving birth to a dog would actually be incredibly strong evidence ''against'' evolution. If explaining this simple point does not sway the creationist from thinking this is a legitimate objection, the evolutionist is likely to give up right then and there as it's clear evidence his opponent is either uninterested or incapable of holding a reasonable discussion. The creationist will then, as per this trope, claim that they have conclusively proven the evolution is false.
** Gish himself used to use the ''exact'' same talk every single time. Michael Shermer once went first when debating him and not only explained why all his questions were wrong and how his quotes were all out of context, he even stole all his jokes. Gish then gave the same speech he always gave and his supporters still declared him the clear winner.
* [[http://www.youtube.com/user/shanedk Shane Killian]] is infamous for utilizing the ChewbaccaDefense both in RealLife politics and on the internet. In fact, it oftentimes is his only means of presenting an argument. Even when he is in the right, he has to present a ChewbaccaDefense as though it is a necessary compulsion. Examples of his actions can be found [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXUSliphRmg here]], [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLX3MmUaUJo here]], and [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpjJS1EuiPw here]].
* Cato the Elder is famous for (among other things) ending his senate speeches with [[CatchPhrase "Carthago delenda est,"]] ''Carthage must be destroyed.'' All of them. Regardless of what he was discussing. "Yes, I agree, let's raise the taxes on grain. And Carthage must be destroyed" (until it finally was).

* Most Parliaments and Senates during open debate or question period.
** '''Especially''' when it comes to the [[FlameBait divisive topics]].
* Politicians.
* The internet.

* [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism The Sophists of Ancient Greece]], making this OlderThanFeudalism.
** [[StrawMan As described by their main opponents in Greek Philosophy]]. [[MissingEpisode What they actually thought is gone]].
** In fact they are the origin for the modern term ''sophistry''.

*** He also wrote that a lawyer should never ask a witness a question to which the lawyer doesn't know the answer (also one of Series/{{Rumpole|of the Bailey}}'s maxims) ... which is quite telling in regards to the fact that he had evidence about the Mark Furhman "N-word" issue, and was unethically setting him up for an ambush -- a Chewbacca Defense in itself.

** Generally averted with Parliamentary debate styles, which are by far the most popular English-language debate styles outside the US. These include British Parliamentary (the style used at the World Universities Debating Championship), Canadian Parliamentary, Australasian, and indeed American Parliamentary, which is rapidly increasing in popularity. In such formats, using a Chewbacca defense can and will get you marked down heavily by the judge. The point is not to trip up the other side, but to attack the logic that lies at the heart of their argument. Not that the execution of this strategy doesn't sometimes devolve into Chewbacca defense-like action anyway.

* The TropeNamer was based on Johnnie Cochran's defense of O.J. Simpson, which succeeded largely due to the ignorance of the jury and carelessness of the prosecution. First by focusing the jury on their confusion and uncertainty of what DNA is and how DNA testing really works, and turning that into "reasonable doubt". Second by portraying O.J. as the unjust black victim of white racism via the whole Mark Fuhrman debacle. Third, by using this to hold O.J. out as a prominent member of the black community, which he wasn't. Fourth by making it seem as though the bloody leather gloves did not fit Simpson's hands, when it fact he was putting them on incorrectly.

* Commentary Programs. In any venue where a host holds a position opposed to that of his or her guests, arguments commonly degenerate into a maelstrom of very loud Chewbecca Defenses. Sometimes even occurs during formal debates where the host is supposedly neutral to all parties, but decides to insert personal bias anyways.

* In some religiously skeptical communities, this kind of argument is also known as a [[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop Gish Gallop]]; named after Creationist, biochemist, and professional debater Duane Gish, who is known to be a fan of using the Chewbacca Defense against atheists. His typical method of winning debates is making sure he is the first to speak, rapidly firing off a massive number of points of questionable scientific validity which his opponent couldn't possibly have time to address individually, and claiming a win if as few as one of his arguments remains unchallenged.
** Creationist arguments, such as those used by Duane Gish, can result in plenty of InsaneTrollLogic. However, some arguments are capable of turning even insane troll logic UpToEleven. For example, saying "Evolution isn't true because a cat has never gave birth to a dog," is not only nonsense, [[{{Strawman}} as evolution makes no such claims]], but it [[EpicFail actually goes even further]], because a cat giving birth to a dog would actually be incredibly strong evidence ''against'' evolution. If explaining this simple point does not sway the creationist from thinking this is a legitimate objection, the evolutionist is likely to give up right then and there as it's clear evidence his opponent is either uninterested or incapable of holding a reasonable discussion. The creationist will then, as per this trope, claim that they have conclusively proven the evolution is false.

* Cato the Elder is famous for (among other things) ending his senate speeches with [[CatchPhrase "Carthago delenda est,"]] ''Carthage must be destroyed.'' All of them. Regardless of what he was discussing. "Yes, I agree, let's raise the taxes on grain. And Carthage must be destroyed."

** His friends often don't even bother trying to argue; such is Sheldon's committed use of this trope. Leonard even admits to knuckling under as a matter of policy. On one occasion we clearly see the aftermath of such a defense, Leonard tiredly saying 'Three of us voted to go by plane, Sheldon voted to go by train, so we're taking the train'.

** To clarify, a large piece of the evidence was a slab of marble that Gildea [[spoiler:smashed apart and distributed across his driveway to use as an alibi]]. Powell brings in a wheelbarrow of said marble, claiming that if Monk's theory held up the pieces would fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, which he "disproved" by randomly selecting pieces and holding them together. To be fair, though, the case was probably lost through Powell discrediting Monk by citing his psychological instability, which Monk unknowingly supports by fiddling with his microphone for a length of time, climbing out of the witness stand to put the marble together himself, and, purportedly, screaming "Mayday!" after realizing he was losing. It was a lucky break for Powell that he managed that, because his reasoning with the smashed marble was a case of InsaneTrollLogic. Powell's logic: if the accused, Gildea, had destroyed the marble slab that was his alibi, then why not put it back together like a puzzle? This makes no sense: anyone who works in construction might be aware that the vibrations of a jackhammer break up marble into lots of smaller pieces and each piece is significantly different than each other. Had the prosecution had someone like an iron worker to explain this, Powell would have lost because his "argument" would have been found bogus. Instead it was Monk who was being questioned, and we all know how that went. Even if it ''was'' like a giant puzzle, since when would two random pieces of a huge puzzle have more than an infinitesimal chance of fitting together? It's like he shook a box of nuts and bolts and metal sheets, noticed they failed to assemble themselves into something, and concluded that engineering is impossible.

* During a sketch of ''Series/MontyPythonsFlyingCircus'' the lawyer calls in several unrelated "witnesses", including a dead man in a coffin.

* An episode of ''Law & Order: SVU'' in which Detective Benson investigates the role of an Army-administered drug (I think for malaria) in assaults committed by veterans. During the trial, the military officer defending the Army accuses her of hating American soldiers, rather than challenging her on the evidence.

** To top it off, the film begins with Naylor cleverly turning around criticism, convincing a juvenile cancer victim and TV talk show audience that in fact it's the ''cancer victims' advocate'' who's selling death, [[MindScrew because the tobacco industry wants people alive to smoke while the advocates needs them dead for their work]].
** Plus when Joey has to write an essay on what's best about America, Nick replies "Our endless appeals system," with almost knee-jerk response time.

* In ''GhostInTheShellStandAloneComplex'', The AmoralAttorney tries to get his cyborg client off for murdering his girlfriend by trying to have the trial focus on the supposed (read: completely fabricated) technophobic beliefs of the officer who shot him.

** Not so much that the post office is awesome, as the argument that the post office is part of the US government, and if they recognize the man as Santa, it must be true.

--->'''You are working at a toy store, yes? Does that not make you a hypocrite?'''
--->What? How does that even - ?"
--->'''Money equals power. Power equals camel. Camel equals five celery sticks. Five. Quid pro quo.'''

* Used in ''LightNovel/KyoukaiSenjouNoHorizon'' by Pope Innocentius when he's debating against Masazumi. Masazumi has just accused the Testament Union of abusing the system of History Recreation to benefit themselves at the cost of an innocent person's life. She then proposes an alternative course of action that requires no deaths and benefits not just the far east but ultimately the whole world. The Pope's response? He reveals to everyone listening that Masazumi (who presents herself as male) is actually a girl and then accuses her of just using the situation to take power for herself. It was totally irrelevant, did nothing to counter her arguments and it almost worked.

* Used in "KyoukaiSenjouNoHorizon" by Pope Innocentius when he's debating against Masazumi. Masazumi Has Just accused the testament union of abusing the system of history recreation to benefit themselves at the cost of an innocent person's life. She then proposes an alternative course of action that requires no deaths and benefits not just the far east but ultimately the whole world. The Pope's response? He reveals to everyone listening that Masazumi -who presents herself as male- is actually a girl and then accuses her of just using the situation to take power for herself. It was totally irrelevant, did nothing to counter her arguments and it almost worked.

[-[[caption-width-right:250:"Ladies and gentlemen of this ''supposed'' jury, it does not make sense! [[TropeNamer If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit]]! The defense rests. [[hottip:*: He's not from Endor; he's from Kashyyyk (also, he hasn't LIVED anywhere for a long time because he follows Han around. At most, he lives on the Falcon)]]"]]-]

* An episode of [[MarthaSpeaks Martha Speaks]] has the titular talking dog taking part in a trial. To sum up the story so far, the cranky old lady next door had her lawn furniture wrecked by a guy who was clearly talking on his phone while driving and running a red light, almost running other Martha and the lady. Martha, being a TALKING dog and all, is brought in as a witness. Then the driver brings in a dog expert who says that Martha's testimony is wrong because [[InsaneTrollLogic she talks because she is a poorly trained dog (she isn't), and thus wouldn't know that she SHOULDN'T be able to speak.]] True, the reason WHY is speaks only seems to work on her (and the letters from alphabet soup ending up in the brain is a little....[[ArtisticLicenseBiology impossible]] ) but that's the same logic CARTOONS use with GRAVITY only working when you look down or being able to fly until someone points out your particular species is incapable of flight. Around that point, the plot starts to get a little confusing, with the old lady, for no really explained reason starts siding with the guy who ALMOST RAN HER OVER.

* In ''MassEffect2'', you have the option of using this at Tali's trial. While you can use more honest methods of defense, this is the only method that saves Tali from exile ''and'' gets you Tali's loyalty. Also, Shepard's Chewbacca Defense, while failing to address the charges against Tali, is based around the accurate point that [[KangarooCourt the judges are pursuing their political agendas through this case and don't care what happens to Tali]].