History Main / ChewbaccaDefense

::For the record, Chewbacca ''doesn't'' live on Endor, he lives on Kashyyyk.[[labelnote:If you want to get technical]]He actually doesn't even live on Kashyyyk, he was ''born'' on Kashyyyk, but spends the majority of his time (and pretty much all of his screen time) travelling with Han Solo aboard the ''Millenium Falcon.''[[/labelnote]] In fact, nobody lives on Endor, because it's a gas giant. Ewoks live on one of Endor's moons. Therefore, Cochran's entire argument, in addition to being nonsense, is also completely ''wrong''. [[FridgeBrilliance Which may or may not have been the whole point]] since Chef was clearly the victim of a FrivolousLawsuit and deserved to win. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit, and he doesn't, so the jury shouldn't have acquitted and should have sided with Chef instead.

::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. Therefore, Cochran's entire argument, in addition to being nonsense, is also completely ''wrong''. [[FridgeBrilliance Which may or may not have been the whole point]] since Chef was clearly the victim of a FrivolousLawsuit and deserved to win. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit, and he doesn't, so the jury shouldn't have acquitted and should have sided with Chef instead.

* In ''FanFic/EquestriaAHistoryRevealed'', this was done in Chapter 4, in which the narrator purposely attempts to confuse you with confusingly similar terms and insane logic, and practically tells the reader that they just have the accept the confusion and move on, despite it not making a lick of sense.

* From the original radio show ''Radio/TheHitchhikersGuideToTheGalaxy'':

* ''WebComic/HobbitsAndHoleDwellers'': [[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.

* {{Discussed|Trope}} in the ''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 in itself is an example of HollywoodLaw; since in real life a victim does not "press charges," but simply files a complaint: and the ''prosecutor's office'' charges the suspect.

* {{Discussed|Trope}} in the ''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.

** One of the major methods of the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement Sovereign Citizen]] movement is to attack opposing council and the judge during criminal trials where they are the defense. Many such individuals will pick at small statements in an effort to discredit a witness based on small details that may be wholly irrelevant to the trial. While this certainly isn't a new legal tactic, it is the most common tactic used by a sovereign citizen as a basic argument. In the doctrine of their reasoning, it is assumed that if a witness cannot give flawless testimony, it must be wholly discarded or it can be grounds for a mistrial on appeal. They will also do this to prosecution and to judges presiding over the trial in an effort to discredit anyone by repeatedly referencing things such as "Oath of Office" and "Civil Servant" without ever defining their reasoning or explaining their grievance. Despite the fact that there have been no successful attempts in the United States of America by Sovereign Citizens to gain a mistrial or dismiss a case based on these arguments, the movement continues to gain members who insist on trying these courtroom antics.

* In ''Series/{{Chernobyl}}'', Chief Engineer Fomin insists that anyone claiming that the reactor exploded explain how it did, and since they can't, it must not have exploded. Day shift supervisor Sitnikov can't answer because he doesn't know (only that it did, as evidenced by the core's graphite innards lying around everywhere). Professor Legasov can't answer because he ''does'' know, but it's a state secret, and he's stalled until Shcherbina cuts through the bullshit by suggesting Fomin ''dis''prove the claim.

* The ShoutingFreeForAll: If you win it, you win the argument. If you ''don't'' win it, you ''still'' win the argument, because you've forced your opponent into a screaming match rather than a real debate. Easily combined with QualityByPopularVote, because people often side with the more charismatic debater, and they often equate that with the ''loudest'' debater.

** The "kaftatrap" is named, of course, after Creator/FranzKafka. It states that all affirmation of something means it's true, and all denial of it ''also'' means it's true, because obviously if you're denying something that means you're lying about it. Imagine the ArmoredClosetGay; if you say you're gay, people will naturally think you're gay, but if you ''deny'' you're gay, people will ''still'' think you're gay because everyone who's gay is in denial about it.

** Defense counsel [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kanarek Irving Kanarek]] was infamous for this sort of thing. He gained notoriety for his defense of James "Jimmy Youngblood" Smith, on trial for the murder of Ian Campbell; Kanarek frequently ended debates by asking the same question over and over until the judge got exasperated and gave up. His antics drove at least one prosecutor from his profession in disgust. He was impressive enough that UsefulNotes/CharlesManson asked for him to represent him at his own trial.

The trope is named after the "Chef Aid" episode of ''WesternAnimation/SouthPark'', in which Johnnie Cochran -- famous for his CourtroomAntic in defending Creator/OJSimpson in his famous murder trial[[note]]Indeed, this scene was inspired by his antics in that trial, in which it was commonly believed that he and his team successfully did this for real. But it's not likely -- most [[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/prosecution.html legal analysis of the Simpson case]] suggests that O.J. was acquitted because the prosecution pretty much botched the case (jury selection, mishandling DNA evidence, having Simpson try on the glove). The closest thing Cochran did to the Chewbacca Defense was repeating his line, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!" -- heavy on the "buzzword" strategy, and directly parodied by this ''South Park'' episode[[/note]] -- defends his client by arguing that [[Franchise/StarWars Chewbacca does not live on Endor]], when not only did no one claim he did, it has nothing to do with the case. He then yells that the very fact that he's talking about Chewbacca shows the absurdity of the proceedings and the weakness of the case against his client. And it works! Indeed, many RealLife lawyers and politicians have spoken of the "Chewbacca Defense", even though in the context of the ''South Park'' episode itself, there were [[ArtisticLicenseLaw a lot of inaccuracies]], as [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa-Z5QCZQNg more than one]] [[https://thelegalgeeks.com/2013/05/03/a-legal-analysis-of-the-chewbacca-defense/ lawyer has pointed out.]][[note]]The biggest is that "Chef Aid" involves a ''civil'' case, in this case copyright law. Any attempt to confuse the jury into ruling contrary to law risks the judge throwing out the verdict and ruling otherwise (a "Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict", or JNOV). The evidence was so clear-cut that they shouldn't have ''needed'' a jury to resolve it.[[/note]]

A common {{Courtroom Antic|s}} (even though RealLife courts are wise to this and will nip it in the bud pretty quickly); if it works too easily, you might be looking at a KangarooCourt. Also a possibility for a SimpleCountryLawyer using his ObfuscatingStupidity. Compare ConfusionFu, PassiveAggressiveKombat, RefugeInAudacity, and AbominationAccusationAttack.

* The [[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop "Gish Gallop"]] (as it's known on Wiki/RationalWiki, named after [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish#Debates Duane Gish]]): Hit your opponent with as many arguments as you can in as short a timespan as you can. If they don't address ''every single one'' to your satisfaction, you win. And it's practically impossible for them to do that because they have no time to prepare and are not going to pay attention to everything you're vomiting out there.

** [[{{Technobabble}} Misuse of scientific, legal, and medical terms]] is a favorite tactic. All you have to do is throw out the appropriate buzzword, regardless of whether it has anything to do with the debate, and you look like you know what you're talking about. Since the audience doesn't understand the technical nuances of the words, they can't call you on it. And any attempt to refute the term makes the other side look like an idiot, because he's spending way more time explaining why you're wrong than you did throwing out buzzwords. Indeed, [[YouKeepUsingThatWord using the definition incorrectly]] is ''more'' effective because your opponent has to spend more time correcting you. Depending on the exact field, words like "quantum", "antioxidant", "privilege", or "blockchain" are gold mines for this sort of thing.

* The "[[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop Gish Gallop]]" (as it's known on Wiki/RationalWiki, named after [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish#Debates Duane Gish]]): Hit your opponent with as many arguments as you can in as short a timespan as you can. If they don't address ''every single one'' to your satisfaction, you win. And it's practically impossible for them to do that because they have no time to prepare and are not going to pay attention to everything you're vomiting out there.

The trope is named after the "Chef Aid" episode of ''WesternAnimation/SouthPark'', in which Johnnie Cochran -- famous for his CourtroomAntic in defending Creator/OJSimpson in his famous murder trial[[note]]Indeed, this scene was inspired by his antics in that trial, in which it was commonly believed that he and his team successfully did this for real. But it's not likely -- most [[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/prosecution.html legal analysis of the Simpson case]] suggests that O.J. was acquitted because the prosecution pretty much botched the case (jury selection, mishandling DNA evidence, having Simpson try on the glove). The closest thing Cochran did to the Chewbacca Defense was repeating his line, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!" -- heavy on the "buzzword" strategy, and directly parodied by this ''South Park'' episode[[/note]] -- defends his client by arguing that [[Franchise/StarWars Chewbacca does not live on Endor]], when not only did no one claim he did, it has nothing to do with the case. He then yells that the very fact that he's talking about Chewbacca shows the absurdity of the proceedings and the weakness of the case against his client. And it works! Indeed, many RealLife lawyers and politicians have spoken of the "Chewbacca Defense", even though in the context of the ''South Park'' episode itself, there were [[ArtisticLicenseLaw a lot of inaccuracies]], as [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa-Z5QCZQNg more than one]] [[https://thelegalgeeks.com/2013/05/03/a-legal-analysis-of-the-chewbacca-defense/ lawyer has pointed out]].[[note]]The biggest is that "Chef Aid" involves a ''civil'' case, in this case copyright law. Any attempt to confuse the jury into ruling contrary to law risks the judge throwing out the verdict and ruling otherwise (a "Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict", or JNOV). The evidence was so clear-cut that they shouldn't have ''needed'' a jury to resolve it.[[/note]]

** This is the perennial strategy of his protégé, Apollo Justice. In the third case of his game, it turns out to be impossible to do because Apollo doesn't have the necessary evidence ([[spoiler:he only wins the case because he threatens to call a decisive witness]]). The true killer [[spoiler:had to be a Borginian cocoon smuggler as was previously proven. So, Apollo says that if the witness admits he's a smuggler, thus proving that Daryan is his accomplice, it in turn decisively proves that the only one who could be the killer is Daryan himself, as he is the only smuggler with no alibi for the murder]]. On top of this, considering that [[spoiler:Borginian cocoon smuggling is punished with the death sentence in Borginia, if he admits he smuggled the cocoons during the current trial, the duty of punishment would fall on the American (Japanese in original version) courts instead of those of Borginia, meaning he would not be killed. So in other words, the killer must testify about his crimes, otherwise he will die, which means that there is no escape for the true killer.]]

* Referenced and {{Inverted|Trope}} in ''Webcomic/DarthsAndDroids'', when Han is facing treason charges. Chewbacca [[http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/1296.html acts as his defense lawyer]], which is [[https://darthsanddroids.net/episodes/1304.html noted by the players to be a wise decision]] given how intelligent and well-spoken Chewie is.

** Discussed in [[http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/ this article]]. Most of the argument techniques mentioned fall into this territory.

* ''WebVideo/LegalEagle'' discusses the ''South Park'' episode and the defense as it appears in the court sequences within the episode [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa-Z5QCZQNg in this video]].

** "The Trial of R. Kelly" features Music/RKelly 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:

* In ''WesternAnimation/TheSpectacularSpiderMan'' episode "Identity Crisis", Venom leaks Peter Parker's SecretIdentity to the press. When Spider-Man denies being Peter, Venom tells the press that former has to be Peter, since Spider-Man would have to unmask himself to prove he wasn't Peter. Spider-Man stops mid-battle to tell Venom how little sense it would make for him to reveal his secret identity to the world just to prove who that identity ''isn't''.

** The Ancient Greeks called this "sophistry". And they weren't particularly put off by it; they felt that logic and wisdom were just tools to get what you want and had no inherent value beyond that. Indeed, "sophistry" comes from [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist "sophist"]], which was essentially a neutral term for a wise man. However, over time the word "sophistry" drifted to refer to underhanded or fallacious debate tactics (evident in other languages; for instance, the French term for a UsefulNotes/{{logical fallac|ies}}y is ''sophisme''). Perhaps this was the case even back then; after all, all we know about the Greek opinion of debating comes from [[TheWarOnStraw their political rivals]], who might have had a bone to pick.

** Jared Fogle, longtime spokesperson for the Subway sandwich chain for his claims that he lost hundreds of pounds just eating Subway sandwiches, was suddenly dropped after being accused of several charges of child pornography. He tried a variant of the "Twinkie defense" that pundits called the "Subway Diet defense". [[http://dlisted.com/2015/11/19/subway-jared-got-15-years-in-the-chokey/ It didn't work]].

** The ManyQuestionsFallacy -- loaded questions like "When did you stop beating your wife?" are easy to ask but take a long time to deconstruct and refute, because the question itself is invalid. (America hasn't gotten into the habit of using the traditional UsefulNotes/{{Buddhis|m}}t response of ''[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative) mu]]''.)

-->'''Gundham:''' Even if the turbid box does not exist...you could travel through multiple planes...provided you use a spacious wormhole...however how frail, frail, I say! Your decayed illusion...shall I feed you to the progeny of vile deities!?

* Since the ''South Park'' episode "Chef Aid" publicized the idea of the Chewbacca Defense, the term has since entered the vernacular of the modern law system, used very commonly by lawyers and judges to quickly explain the problem with another person's argument.
* 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 blatantly obvious in other languages. The French word for fallacy is ''Sophisme''.
* 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 sentence, 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.
* Jared Fogle attempted to defend himself against child pornography charges with a [[http://dlisted.com/2015/11/19/subway-jared-got-15-years-in-the-chokey/ Subway Diet Defense]]. It didn't work.
* The trope namer was based on Johnnie Cochran's defense of UsefulNotes/OJSimpson. The lead forensic expert on the case, Dr. Henry Lee, kept making guarded allusions to "something not looking right" with the evidence. This, along with the horror stories surrounding the LAPD's past misconduct, was all it took to convince the jury, despite Dr. Lee not providing any real examples as to how the evidence was faked. Much of the forensic evidence used had already been notoriously confusing. There was also the fact a preservative was found to be mixed in with the blood collected, which opened the possibility that it was contaminated. Cochran later went on a long spiel in his closing argument where he compared Mark Fuhrman to Hitler for his past racist statements and ultimately blamed unknown drug dealers for the murders.
* In his book ''To be a Trial Lawyer'', F. Lee Bailey wrote disapprovingly that if a client is guilty, then a lawyer's best bet is to get the most unintelligent jury possible. He also wrote that a lawyer should never ask a witness a question the lawyer doesn't already know the answer to - doing so could potentially hamstring a carefully crafted case.
* High school and college debate in the U.S. can get ''extremely'' convoluted. Since the point of competitive debate is not just to argue about a topic, but to defeat your opponent, most debate strategy is built around trying to trip up the other side. As a result, some coaches feel that implausible and goofy arguments are ''better'', since it forces the other side to waste time trying to respond. If they ignore the argument, you can claim that you won the point since they didn't respond properly. The classic example is if you're arguing against a resolution, you try to prove that their plan will eventually lead to nuclear war, even if it's about something like homelessness or health care (it's known as the eco-feminism disadvantage, and someone always figures out a way to apply it to the current topic). Sometimes debaters will respond to an argument like that by agreeing that it will cause nuclear war, but that nuclear war is a ''good'' thing.\\
\\
The "correct" way to respond to it is to refute it with specific evidence in your debate file, taking advantage of your ability to speak last. Another method is to not even argue about the topic but object to your opponent's argument on philosophical grounds (e.g. accuse them of being racist or sexist). Depending on the judge, calling them out on their rule abusing Chewbacca Defense may or may not result in it getting dismissed.\\
\\
In addition, some high school debaters adopt the style of speaking so quickly, their opponent would lack the opportunity to write all the arguments down, leading to the opponent being unable to argue certain points. This is known as spreading. Because silence is consent, any points not responded to are considered dropped, and are no longer under debate. A practiced spreader will throw so many arguments out that it's difficult to avoid dropping an entire category. This is completely within the rules, but not all judges will tolerate it, because they have to follow the debate too. Most judges who have a problem with spreading will say so beforehand, and then decide for the person who didn't spread. This differs from the Gish Gallop in that the arguments are ''not'' bogus, so calling them out on it doesn't work.\\
\\
Despite the trope name being the Chewbacca ''Defense'', in debate this is nearly always done by the Affirmative side, which speaks first. Negative must respond to the specific case presented by Affirmative and is generally not allowed to introduce new topics.
* Many TV pundits make a ''living'' out of using this. Just about any public commentator of any political leaning may eventually end up here once they get enough fame. Of course, this calls for a lot of parodies -- [[PoesLaw not always discernible from the real thing]].
* This is usually averted with Parliamentary debate styles, which are by far the most popular English-language debate styles outside the U.S. 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.
* ''Derailing for Dummies'' outlines steps to win any argument by derailing it with a Chewbacca Defense [[NoYou and then claiming the person on the business end is the one derailing it]].
* Jargon usually exists to facilitate communication in a specialized context where "normal English" could be imprecise, would require lengthy qualifiers, or is simply badly suited to conveying an idea. It also develops naturally, like slang. It's also useful for purveyors of baloney, since jargon is often difficult to understand if you're not in the field. This can and generally does lead to people throwing around words like "privilege" and "erasure" in arguments ''[[YouKeepUsingThatWord without even knowing what they are]].'' A related issue is people insisting that only the jargon definition can be the ''real'' one, and making claims against opponents on that basis, when most words actually have multiple definitions (those in academic jargon are in most cases far from the common ones).
* [[{{Technobabble}} Misusing scientific and medical terms]] is a favorite tactic for Chewbacca Defenses. The word quantum and equivocations with the word energy are favorites, with antioxidants and alkali/acid showing up perennially in health quackery. These are really problematic to defend against, since first the correct definition of the scientific or medical term has to be defended.
* According to the [[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html argumentative theory of reasoning]], the entire evolutionary purpose of human reasoning is to win arguments; finding the truth is purely incidental. Therefore, the theory goes, bias and irrationality evolved because of this.
* 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 it even occurs during formal debates where the host is supposedly neutral to all parties, but decides to insert personal bias anyways.
* Among the atheist and agnostic community, this kind of argument is often referred to as a [[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop "Gish Gallop"]], named after Creationist, biochemist, and professional debater [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish#Debates Duane Gish]], who was well known for using the Chewbacca Defense against evolutionists. His typical method of winning a debate was making sure he was 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. Worth noting, he still tried this in his debate against Michael Shermer. Shermer went first when debating him and not only explained why all Gish's 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 declared himself the winner.
* 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 Carthage was razed to the ground as he had wanted for years. Of course, his purpose was not to trip up opponents but to remind Romans of what he considered a serious threat (Rome had been lenient on its defeated foe after the first war with Carthage, and had been nearly destroyed for it in the second).
* Creator/{{Cicero}}:
** This was a common tactic of Roman lawyers, especially Cicero. His "Pro Caelio" is an excellent example, using everything from immense verbosity to pretending to channel a certain woman's dead father to call her a slut. These tactics pull the judges completely off-topic and acquit the defendant Caelius, who is most likely guilty.
** It gets worse. 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 as well.
** Ironically, Cicero was responsible for one of the most glorious {{subversion}}s of this style of debate during his successful prosecution of Gaius Verres, the super-corrupt governor of Sicily. Verres hired Quintus Hortensius, widely regarded as the finest Roman lawyer and a master of the florid rhetoric that often swung trials. Hortensius, in addition to his planned Chewbacca defense, also deployed a battery of procedural tricks to delay the trial, giving Cicero only 9 days to present his case (this in an era when opening speeches usually lasted 5!) before a new, bought and paid for judge would be installed, making Cicero's job impossible. Cicero, who had spent the previous year shuttling between Rome and Sicily, gathering evidence (at one point summoning a mob and breaking into the Sicilian archives and carrying them off, and interviewing all of Verres's victims), simply stood up, outlined all of the defense's tricks to the prosecution, and then proceeded to call his witnesses one by one, making no speech at all. It took less than three days before Verres packed his bags and fled, disguised as a woman, to Masillia, where he died.
* Politics ''thrives'' on this to the point that listing all the examples would cover most of human history.
* Creator/ArthurCClarke once wrote an essay describing his methods of dealing with cranks. One of his suggestions was to respond to the crank with even greater levels of insanity until he leaves, thinking that ''you'' are the crank.
* In his defense of James "Jimmy Youngblood" Smith, on trial for the murder of Ian Campbell, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kanarek defense c Irving Kanarek]] frequently attempted to end debates and questioning by asking the same question over and over, in hopes the judge would grow exasperated and back down. His antics not only drove at least one prosecutor from his profession in disgust, but led Charles Manson to request him as an attorney during his own trial.
* "When did you stop beating your wife?" is a loaded question that's usually used when someone is in an argument or dispute.
* "Sealioning" (the name comes from [[http://wondermark.com/1k62/ this]] ''Webcomic/{{Wondermark}}'' strip) is a bad-faith argumentative strategy that's sort of an inverted Gish gallop; instead of making positive but untrue claims and forcing the opponent to debunk them at length, the sealion adopts a pose of fake civility and demands that the other party exhaustively verify every statement they make, regardless of relevance or significance, until said party gives the whole thing up as a waste of time, before holding up the refusal to engage with the sealion as proof that said sealion is in the right. This, too, can result in the Chewbacca Paradox, since legitimate civil requests for evidence and clarification can dismissed as sealioning too.
* Similarly, "kafkatrapping" has been described as using any denial of bias as itself evidence for it (from Creator/FranzKafka, of course). Thus no matter what one says then, you are guilty. Yet again, legitimate accusations of bias are also dismissed as this at times.
* [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fLd0duzT6g Senator Mike Lee R-Utah attacked the "Green New Deal"]] with "the seriousness it deserves." His speech includes, but is not limited to, pictures of [[WesternAnimation/{{Superfriends}} Aquaman riding a seahorse]], UsefulNotes/RonaldReagan riding a velociraptor shooting a gun, and [[Film/TheEmpireStrikesBack Luke Skywalker riding a tauntaun]]. The purpose was mockery, not conviction, framing the GND as physically, financially, and logistically impossible.
* 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. Either the opponent runs out of time and can't refute everything (in which case you claim victory because if not all your arguments were refuted, "obviously" it means the ones that weren't were correct) or by the time they've refuted all your arguments you have moved on to new ones (in which case you claim victory because the opponent hasn't said anything about your ''current'' arguments, so "obviously" they're right).

My hair is a bird, [[MemeticMutation your article is invalid]].

* 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 Carthage was razed to the ground as he had wanted for years.

* Jared Fogle attempted to defend himself against child pornography charges with a [[http://dlisted.com/2015/11/19/subway-jared-got-15-years-in-the-chokey/ Subway Diet Defense.]] It didn't work.

* Jargon usually exists to facilitate communication in a specialized context where "normal English" could be imprecise, would require lengthy qualifiers, or is simply badly suited to conveying an idea. It also develops naturally, like slang. It's also useful for purveyors of baloney, since jargon is often difficult to understand if you're not in the field. This can and generally does lead to people throwing around words like "privilege" and "erasure" in arguments ''[[YouKeepUsingThatWord without even knowing what they are.]]'' A related issue is people insisting that only the jargon definition can be the ''real'' one, and making claims against opponents on that basis, when most words actually have multiple definitions (those in academic jargon are in most cases far from the common ones).

My hair is a bird, [[MemeticMutation your article is invalid.]]

* In the ''Series/{{Coach}}'' episode "Van Damn (sic) vs. Fox", Luther burns his tongue at a barbecue at Hayden's after he takes a still hot sausage off the grill and bites into it, and decides to sue him for $12.5 million. Both men [[AFoolForAClient represent themselves]] and Luther's whole defense is trying paint Hayden's barbecue as being unsafe (noting that he served alcoholic beverages, for example), while Hayden's hinges on Luther being TooDumbToLive. [[spoiler:Ultimately, the judge sides with Luther, but, when Hayden [[LoopholeAbuse explains that he doesn't actually own his house, Doris, (his team's owner and Luther's girlfriend) does]], the judge orders her to pay the damages, causing Luther to immediately drop the lawsuit]].

** 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 second 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]].]]
** Edgeworth himself does this [[spoiler:if he presents wrong evidences when under player control, only to be called out on it by Franziska Von Karma]].
** This is the perennial strategy of his protégé, Apollo Justice. In the third case of his game, it turns out to be impossible to do because Apollo doesn't have the necessary evidence ([[spoiler:he only wins the case because he threatens to call a decisive witness]]). The true killer [[spoiler:had to be a Borginian cocoon smuggler as was previously proven. So, Apollo says that if the witness admits he's a smuggler, thus proving that Daryan is his accomplice, it in turn decisively proves that the only one who could be the killer is Daryan himself, as he is the only smuggler with no alibi for the murder]]. On top of this, considering that [[spoiler:Borginian cocoon smuggling is punished with the death sentence in Borginia, if he admits he smuggled the cocoons during the current trial, the duty of punishment would fall on the American (Japanese in original version) courts instead of those of Borginia, meaning he would not be killed. So in other words, the killer must testify about his crimes, otherwise he will die, which means that there is no escape for the true killer]].

* 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 their opponent is dead wrong]]. This has advanced to the point where there are specific Chewbacca Defenses that can be pointed out and some [[MemeticMutation have even taken on a new life as memes]].
* GodwinsLaw 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. 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 holds that invoking Godwin's Law intentionally because you're sick of debating ("You're Hitler. Debate over.") doesn't work. It should be noted that the Hitler Rule itself can also be considered a Chewbacca Defense. "This person mentioned Hitler, therefore their argument is false" doesn't really fly.

* ''Derailing for Dummies'' outlines steps to win any argument by derailing it with a Chewbacca Defense [[NoYou and then claiming the person on the business end is the one derailing it.]]

A Chewbacca Defense is a way of "winning" a debate through methods other than logic and reasoned argument, up to and including the deliberate use of InsaneTrollLogic to confuse people.

The sad part? ''It works''. [[TruthInTelevision Not just in media, but in]] RealLife, too. In fact, many political systems are ''based'' on doing this.

'''Key signs of a Chewbacca Defense include:'''
* Being accused of loving or hating X, where X is a subject unrelated to the debate.[[note]] RedHerring. [[/note]]
* Having a point repeated over and over again.
* Shouting because if your voice is louder, you seem more powerful, and powerful people always win, so you must be the winner.
* 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.
* Hitting your opponent rapid-fire with so many bogus arguments that they can't keep up unless they write them all down and painstakingly address them one at a time. This lets you claim that their failure to answer a few points is proof that they ''couldn't'' answer. Also known as a [[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop "Gish Gallop"]]. It is named after [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish#Debates Duane Gish]], a debater who was known for using this tactic.

'''The common Chewbacca Defense is based on some combination of the following [[LogicalFallacies misconceptions and/or fallacies]]:'''
* If you can prove the other side wrong about something, no matter how irrelevant, it makes them totally wrong and you absolutely right. See FalseDichotomy and [[UsefulNotes/LogicalFallacies Fallacy Fallacy]].
* If you can word your statements and arguments in a way that is too confusing, intelligent sounding, or nonsensical for the opponent to understand or respond to, it makes them wrong and you right. See InsaneTrollLogic.
* 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 [[UsefulNotes/LogicalFallacies Argumentum Ad Nauseam]].
* If you can make your opponent look bad, then their argument must be equally bad and therefore they must be wrong and you have to be right. See also: GodwinsLaw, AdHominem, [[TheWarOnStraw Strawman]].
* If you can [[QualityByPopularVote have more support]] [[CultOfPersonality than your opponent]], you must be right because more people agree with you.

Unfortunately, the mere existence of the Chewbacca Defense leads to a problem in debates known as '''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.

Another problem with the whole premise is that it is a civil ''fictional satire'' of a criminal case.

As Devin J. Stone, Esq. (a licensed lawyer in DC, Maryland, Virginia, New York, & California) points out in [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa-Z5QCZQNg "Real Lawyer Reacts to South Park Chewbacca Defense"]] there are many gross inaccuracies with the South Park episode.

Similarly, Legal Geeks (a pair of e-Discovery attorneys) in [[https://thelegalgeeks.com/2013/05/03/a-legal-analysis-of-the-chewbacca-defense/ "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 [[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/prosecution.html "Evaluating the Prosecution's Case" (Frontline)]] point out many errors made by the prosecution in the OJ Simpson case —
* Rushing to a trial rather than starting a grand jury investigation to spot any possible problems with the evidence...which they were still gathering.
* Having a largely inexperienced prosecutor try the case.
* The prosecution spending way too much time on and being way too technical with the DNA evidence.
* 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. [[https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/every-possible-reason-why-o-j-simpsons-glove-didnt-fit-at-trial.html/ Even Marcia Clark knew it was a bad idea but was overruled by Darden]].

So the trope of South Park's "Chewbacca Defense" is from a fictional (and ''inaccurate'') version of an actual case that required ignoring the gross incompetence of the prosecution in the actual case for the joke to even work

Compare ConfusionFu, PassiveAggressiveKombat, RefugeInAudacity, and AbominationAccusationAttack. As the strategy can work very well in conjunction with ObfuscatingStupidity, it's often popular with {{Simple Country Lawyer}}s. See also CourtroomAntics.[[note]]Keep in mind, though, that particularly ridiculous, asinine, or otherwise worthless Chewbacca Defenses can and often will get the user in trouble if used in court; basically, if the judge calls your defense [[FrivolousLawsuit "frivolous" or "vexatious"]], that's a slightly more subtle way of saying "shut the fuck up, this is utter nonsense and you're going to face harsh penalties if you don't stop right now", and continuing in spite of that will result in contempt of court charges. If you're an attorney who regularly uses particularly bizarre or groundless sophisms as part of your strategy, odds are good that you will be harshly punished by the bar association, and if they're particularly egregious or you clearly have not learned after being punished multiple times, disbarment is a very real possibility.[[/note]] A Chewbacca Prosecution may also be used in a KangarooCourt, where it doesn't matter ''what'' the prosecutor says because he's going to win anyway.

* If you can prove the other side wrong about something, no matter how irrelevant, it makes them totally wrong and you absolutely right. See FalseDichotomy and FallacyFallacy.

* ''Franchise/AceAttorney'':
** 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 second 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]].]]
** Edgeworth himself does this [[spoiler:if he presents wrong evidences when under player control, only to be called out on it by Franziska Von Karma]].
** This is the perennial strategy of his protégé, Apollo Justice. In the third case of his game, it turns out to be impossible to do because Apollo doesn't have the necessary evidence ([[spoiler:he only wins the case because he threatens to call a decisive witness]]). The true killer [[spoiler:had to be a Borginian cocoon smuggler as was previously proven. So, Apollo says that if the witness admits he's a smuggler, thus proving that Daryan is his accomplice, it in turn decisively proves that the only one who could be the killer is Daryan himself, as he is the only smuggler with no alibi for the murder]]. On top of this, considering that [[spoiler:Borginian cocoon smuggling is punished with the death sentence in Borginia, if he admits he smuggled the cocoons during the current trial, the duty of punishment would fall on the American (Japanese in original version) courts instead of those of Borginia, meaning he would not be killed. So in other words, the killer must testify about his crimes, otherwise he will die, which means that there is no escape for the true killer]].
** A witness actually pulls this off in ''VisualNovel/PhoenixWrightAceAttorneyDualDestinies''. Hugh O'Conner's testimony about [[spoiler:his body double in the mock trial]] is so unbelievable, so illogical, and so transparent that the prosecutor, Simon Blackquill, {{ragequit}}s the questioning to "go for a stroll." It's actually pretty effective, since the defense eventually does get the truth out of Hugh, and Blackquill isn't there to hinder the proceedings.
* ''Franchise/{{Danganronpa}}'' turns this into a gameplay mechanic in the way of [[RhythmGame Bullet Time]] [[BossBattle Battle]] and its variants, where the opposing side (usually in a last ditch effort to defend themselves) tries to throw a combination of [[AdHominem random insults]] and [[InsaneTrollLogic nonsensical arguments]] at the PlayerCharacter with a loud noise at rapid succession. To counter this, the player has to destroy the opponent's assertions and eventually [[FinishingMove counter their final statement with the truth]]. True to this trope, losing these debates leads into an instant GameOver.
** One of the most blatant cases of this is in the 4th trial in ''VisualNovel/Danganronpa2GoodbyeDespair'', where [[LargeHam Gundham Tanaka]] rapidly fires off an insane argument devoid of any logic or real connection to the subject at hand.
-->'''Gundham:''' Even if the turbid box does not exist...you could travel through multiple planes...provided you use a spacious wormhole...however how frail, frail, I say! Your decayed illusion...shall I feed you to the progeny of vile deities!?

* Used offensively in ''VisualNovel/UminekoWhenTheyCry'' during the third arc. Battler has to prove that magic wasn't used to do something and rather than preparing actual logical arguments he just rushes on ahead and declares his victory before his opponent has any idea how the logic game even works. [[spoiler:She turns out to be really good at it when she's given a chance to think, however.]]

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