History Main / ChewbaccaDefense

* [[ArgumentumAdNauseam Having a point repeated over and over again.]]

* If you can make your opponent give up on arguing with you, because you appear too crazy to understand them and/or don't seem to be listening, then they must be wrong and you must be right. See ArgumentumAdNauseam.

* The Twinkie defense. It got Dan White off a double-murder charge. Curse you, Hostess![[note]]He served five years of his seven-year manslaughter charge, got paroled early, and gassed himself after the citizens of San Francisco barred him from ever returning.[[/note]] However, the defense was not actually "he should be let off because he did the murders on a sugar high", as it is often wrongly remembered as, but that White, a health nut, had been depressed at the time of the murders and thus had diminished capacity, with one of the signs of depression being that he'd recently started eating unhealthy food, including Twinkies. Still not great, and California eliminated the defense soon after due to the backlash. White later told a reporter that not only were the murders completely premeditated, he actually intended to kill ''more'' people.

* The Twinkie defense. It got Dan White off a double-murder charge. Curse you, Hostess![[note]]He served five years of his seven-year manslaughter charge, got paroled early, and gassed himself after the citizens of San Francisco rightly barred him from ever returning.[[/note]] However, the defense was not actually "he should be let off because he did the murders on a sugar high", as it is often wrongly remembered as, but that White, a health nut, had been depressed at the time of the murders and thus had diminished capacity, with one of the signs of depression being that he'd recently started eating unhealthy food, including Twinkies. Still not great, and California eliminated the defense soon after due to the backlash. White later told a reporter that not only were the murders completely premeditated, he actually intended to kill ''more'' people.

** Phoenix Wright is accused of doing this in the second game's final case by [[spoiler:his long lost rival, Edgeworth.]] It's arguable that Phoenix did so in that case to [[WeNeedADistraction stall for time]], as well as in the third case of the third game [[spoiler:in order to make the guilty party point out a detail of a piece of incriminating evidence introduced for the first time a few minutes ago, when he was out of the room - [[INeverSaidItWasPoison something he couldn't have known unless he was the killer]].]]

* In ''Film/ListenToMe'', the protagonists win a debate on abortion through use of the {{appeal to consequences}} [[LogicalFallacies fallacy]]. Not only that, but their debating coach explicitly ''instructs'' them to use stories that sway people in using these. This is [[ProtagonistCenteredMorality treated as completely fine]], however underhanded they are as tactics (that wouldn't be allowed in most real formal debates).

Confusing, isn't it?

* Interrupting your opponent and/or talking about nonsense purely to delay and lengthen the debate (a.k.a. "filibustering"). Common in democratic debate, but dictatorships only bother when they're too weak to silence their opposition outright.[[note]]The only thing dictatorships have in common is their ability, and ''need'', to control their own public image. Even the weakest and most corrupt BananaRepublic can at least intimidate their conventional news media into self censorship -- a little intimidation goes a long way when you know where to find these people and are free to do whatever you like to them.[[/note]]
* Having semantics or nitpicks about the argument come up repeatedly, either to tire out or distract the opponent, or to waste time.

Unfortunately, the mere existence of the Chewbacca Defense leads to a problem in debate called '''Chewbacca's Dilemma''': No matter what you say in an argument, no matter how intelligently and clearly you word your rebuttals and assertions, it is possible that your opponent will always perceive whatever you say to be a Chewbacca Defense. In fact, a common political maneuver is to ''use'' a Chewbacca Defense in order to ''accuse the opponent'' of using a Chewbacca Defense.

As Legal Eagle (an actual lawyer) points out in "Real Lawyer Reacts to South Park Chewbacca Defense" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa-Z5QCZQNg) there are many gross inaccuracies with the South Park episode.

Similarly, Legal Geeks (a pair of e-Discovery attorneys) in "A Legal Analysis of The Chewbacca Defense" (https://thelegalgeeks.com/2013/05/03/a-legal-analysis-of-the-chewbacca-defense/) point out "A judge likely would say, “I have a bad feeling about this” and possibly declare a mistrial if such an argument was made in court." and "A party successfully using the Chewbacca Defense to confuse the jury into engaging in jury nullification in a civil lawsuit runs the risk of the losing party winning on a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV). In Chef’s case, the copyright violation should have entitled him to a judgment '''as a matter of law.'''"

Lawyers in "Evaluating the Prosecution's Case" (Frontline) (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/prosecution.html) point out many errors made by the prosecution in the OJ Simpson case —
* Prosecution to rushing to a trial rather than starting a grand jury investigation to spot any possible problems with the evidence...which they were still gathering.

* The prosecution's ever shifting timeline that would often contradict itself.
* The prosecutor walking into the trap laid by the defense by having OJ try on the gloves. Even Marcia Clark knew it was a bad idea but was overruled by Darden (https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/every-possible-reason-why-o-j-simpsons-glove-didnt-fit-at-trial.html/)

Also as Legal Eagle (an actual lawyer) points out in "Real Lawyer Reacts to South Park Chewbacca Defense" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa-Z5QCZQNg) there are many gross inaccuracies with the South Park episode.

* An episode of ''WesternAnimation/MarthaSpeaks'' 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 tries to discredit Martha's testimony by bringing in a dog expert who says that Martha [[InsaneTrollLogic can talk because she doesn't know that she shouldn't be able to speak, and thus is a poorly trained dog (she isn't).]] 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 still. Around that point, the plot starts to get a little confusing, with the old lady, for no really explained reason, siding with the guy who ''almost ran her over''.

* An episode of ''WesternAnimation/MarthaSpeaks'' 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 tries to discredit Martha's testimony by bringing in a dog expert who says that Martha [[InsaneTrollLogic can talk because she doesn't know that she shouldn't be able to speak, and thus is a poorly trained dog (she isn't).]] 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 still Around that point, the plot starts to get a little confusing, with the old lady, for no really explained reason, siding with the guy who ''almost ran her over''.

* An episode of ''WesternAnimation/MarthaSpeaks'' 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 tries to discredit Martha's testamony by bringing in a dog expert who says that Martha [[InsaneTrollLogic can talk because she doesn't know that she shouldn't be able to speak, and thus is a poorly trained dog (she isn't).]] 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, siding with the guy who ''almost ran her over''.

* An episode of ''WesternAnimation/MarthaSpeaks'' 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, siding with the guy who ''almost ran her over''.

* Why this can work is summed up neatly via [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law Brandolini's Law]]: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." In other words, it's easy for someone to string together a bunch of nonsense arguments, but it takes considerably more time and effort for their opponent trying to argue in good faith to go through and refute all of them.

** "The Trial of R. Kelly" features R. Kelly on trial for urinating on a minor. Despite the overwhelming evidence against him, he wins the case because of his popularity and his lawyer used manipulative LogicalFallacies such as comparing R. Kelly's perversions to the Founding Fathers', in an inversion of HitlerAteSugar, and accuses the staggering evidence of being "really" based on racism. The defense lawyer also makes an issue out of the fact that the DA in the case, Tom Dubois, has a white wife (Sarah). [[AuthorAvatar Huey Freeman]] calls the entire court out on their stupidity afterwards:

'''Huey:''' What the hell is wrong with you people? Every famous nigga that gets arrested is not Nelson Mandela! Yes, the government conspires to put a lot of innocent black men in jail on fallacious charges. But R. Kelly is not one of those men! We all know the nigga can sing! But, what happened to standards? What happen to bare minimums! You a fan of R. Kelly? You want to help R. Kelly? Then get some counseling for R. Kelly, introduce him to some older women, hide his camcorder! But, don't pretend like the man is a hero!\\

* ''Hobbits and Hole Dwellers'': [[https://gemofwonder.livejournal.com/5532.html #21]] and [[https://gemofwonder.livejournal.com/5815.html #22]] Ted desperately tries to rein in Bailey during their cammpaign. Bailey, being a young child, responds with this without even trying.

* ''Hobbits and Hole-Dwellers'': [[https://gemofwonder.livejournal.com/5532.html #21]] and [[https://gemofwonder.livejournal.com/5815.html #22]] Ted desperately tries to rein in Bailey. Bailey, being a young child, responds with this without even trying.

* ''Hobbits and Hole-Dwellers'': [[https://gemofwonder.livejournal.com/5532.html #21]] [[https://gemofwonder.livejournal.com/5815.html #22]] Ted desperately tries to rein in Bailey. Bailey, being a young child, responds with this without even trying.

-->'''Bailey:''' [[AnahronismStew Dwalin called Balin's cellphone.]]

* The {{Trope Namer|s}} comes from the ''WesternAnimation/SouthPark'' episode "Chef Aid". The defense is employed by Johnnie Cochran. An oft-overlooked aspect of the defense is that Cochran ''himself'' points out that the argument that he's making is utter nonsense, and is just using this as yet more evidence that the whole trial is a joke and the jury should acquit:
-->'''Cochran:''' Ladies and gentlemen of this ''supposed'' jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" 10 years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: Ladies and gentlemen, this... ''[reveals picture of Chewbacca]'' ...is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca ''lives'' on the planet Endor. Now think about that. That does [[PunctuatedForEmphasis not. Make. Sense.]] Why would a Wookiee, an ''8-foot-tall Wookiee'', want to live on Endor with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not. Make. Sense. But more importantly, you have to ask yourself, "What does this have to do with this case?" ''Nothing''. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not! Make! Sense! Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a ''major record company'', and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does ''that'' make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so, you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No. Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not! Make! Sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must ''acquit''! The defense rests.[[note]]For the record, Chewbacca ''doesn't'' live on Endor, he lives on Kashyyyk. In fact, nobody lives on Endor, because it's a gas giant. Ewoks live on one of Endor's moons. Genuine mistake by the writers, or intentional nod that Chef deserved to win? Who knows?[[/note]]

-->'''Cochran:''' Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, ''I am not making any sense!'' None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room [[SimpleCountryLawyer deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation]], does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this ''supposed jury'', it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor,[[note]]Chewbacca does not, in fact, live on Endor. He's a Wookiee and is thus from Kashyyyk. The Ewoks, who were the Wookiees in an early draft, live on one of Endor's moons. Nobody lives on Endor itself, as it is a gas giant.[[/note]] you must acquit! The defense rests.

* According to texts from Ancient Greece, the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism Sophist]] theory of debate relied heavily on the use of this and other logical fallacies to win arguments, apparently on the grounds that logic and wisdom were merely tools to get what one wants and that they had no inherent value beyond that. Although [[TheWarOnStraw most of what we know about them comes from texts written by their political rivals]], the idea still stuck, leading to the modern term "sophistry" to represent this form of debate strategy. This is blatlantly obvious in other languages. The French word for fallacy is ''Sophisme''.

* Parodied in ''ComicBook/{{Asterix}} and the Laurel Wreath'', where both opposing lawyers on a case attempt to use the ''same'' Chewbacca Defence.

* Cato the Elder is famous for (among other things) ending his senate speeches with [[CatchPhrase "Carthago delenda est,"]] which translates as "Carthage must be destroyed." ''All of them.'' Regardless of what he was discussing. For example, "Yes, I agree, let's raise the taxes on grain. Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed." He continued this practice until the day he died - shortly before [[FunnyAneurysmMoment Carthage was razed to the ground.]]

* [[DiscussedTrope Discussed]] in the chilling ''Series/AllInTheFamily'' episode "Gloria the Victim." After Gloria is nearly raped while out for a walk, she's torn between either pressing charges or trying to put the whole incident out of her mind. A police inspector comes over and warns her, along with Mike and Archie, that if she ''does'' go to court, the suspect's lawyer will use this defense on her by dragging up unrelated subjects, such as the fact that she wears miniskirts or once posed nude for a portrait. Gloria protests that those incidents have nothing to do with the case at hand, and the detective explains that he's aware of that--the whole point is to distract the jury and convince them that Gloria somehow brought the assault on herself. After Edith shares her own story about nearly being assaulted as a young woman, Gloria decides to try to put the criminal away...only for Mike and Archie to shout her down and insist on not pressing charges, leading to a DownerEnding.

* This was discussed in a video of Creator/AndrewKlavan's ''On the Culture where the opposing argument can supposedly be defeated simply by telling them to shut up, as if preventing them from speaking their point of view immediately invalidates it.

* Website/StardestroyerDotNet [[http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Debating-2.html refers to this]] as "the O.J. Simpson defense", claiming it to be a three-part arrangement: make a ton of unsupported claims, treat all your claims as true until proven otherwise, and challenge your opponent to disprove every single one or lose completely. It alludes to this being used in WhoWouldWin debates - namely, a ''Franchise/StarTrek'' fan rattling off the names dozens of technologies, and demanding the other side demonstrate a counter for each one.

* This was discussed in a video of ''WebVideo/AndrewKlavanOnTheCulture'' where the opposing argument can supposedly be defeated simply by telling them to shut up, as if preventing them from speaking their point of view immediately invalidates it.

* According to texts from Ancient Greece, the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism Sophist]] theory of debate relied heavily on the use of this and other logical fallacies to win arguments, apparently on the grounds that logic and wisdom were merely tools to get what one wants and that they had no inherent value beyond that. Although [[TheWarOnStraw most of what we know about them comes from texts written by their political rivals]], the idea still stuck, leading to the modern term "sophistry" to represent this form of debate strategy.

* Being accused of loving or hating X, where X is a subject unrelated to the debate.[[note]] Red Herring. [[/note]]