Chewbacca Defense



"Isaac: I don't really understand what's going on, but he just broke down crying. What do you suppose it means, Miria? Miria: I think it means we won!"

- Baccano!

A Chewbacca Defense is part of an argument that has the effect of confusing the opponent so much that they stop arguing with you. If they are too chicken to continue the argument, the point they are trying to argue must be equally as flimsy, right? Right?

The sad part? It works. Not just in media, but in Real Life, too. In fact, most 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.
 * Having a point repeated over and over again.
 * Shouting
 * Not giving an opponent a chance to talk.
 * Having semantics or nitpicks about the argument come up repeatedly, either to tire out or distract the opponent, or to waste time.

The common Chewbacca Defense is based on some combination of the following misconceptions and/or fallacies:
 * If you can prove the other side wrong, it makes you right. See False Dichotomy.
 * If you can word your statements and arguments in a way that is too confusing, intelligent-sounding, or nonsensical for the opponent to respond to, it makes them wrong and it makes you right. See Insane Troll Logic.
 * If you can shock or confuse your opponent and make them think you are a lost cause and not worth arguing with, you are right.
 * If you can make an opponent look bad, their logic must be equally as bad, and therefore you are right (see also: Godwin's Law, Ad Hominem).
 * If you are more popular than your opponent, it makes them wrong and it makes you right.

Unfortunately, the mere existence of the Chewbacca Defense leads to an unfortunate 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.

Confusing, isn't it?

Compare Confusion Fu, Passive-Aggressive Kombat and Abomination Accusation Attack. As the strategy can work very well in conjunction with Obfuscating Stupidity, it's often popular with Simple Country Lawyers. A Chewbacca Prosecution may also be used in a Kangaroo Court, where it doesn't matter what the prosecuter says because he's going to win anyway.

Anime and Manga

 * Isaac and Miria from Baccano!. The argument referenced in the quote? It wasn't even an argument at all, but rather a Shrinking Violet trying to introduce himself to them.
 * In Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, The Amoral Attorney 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.

Comic Books

 * Parodied in Asterix and the Laurel Wreath, where both opposing lawyers on a case attempt to use the same Chewbacca Defence.
 * In Youngblood: Judgment Day, defense attorney Skipper calls several witnesses to testify about a seemingly irrelevant detail of Riptide's murder (a book missing from her shelf), completely derailing the trial. At first, this seems like a textbook Chewbacca Defense, but the alternate sequence of events he proposes, that the theft of the book was the real motive for the murder and the perpetrator was actually turns out to be true.

Fan Works
"Octavia: What do solving mysteries have to do with music anyway? Vinyl: What don't they have to do with it? Octavia: ...that's so stupid I don't know how to respond. Vinyl: Hurray, that means I win by default!"
 * The Vinyl Scratch Tapes:

Film
"Nick: Okay, let's say that you're defending chocolate, and I'm defending vanilla. Now if I were to say to you: 'Vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream', you'd say: Joey: [Playing along] No, chocolate is. Nick: Exactly, but you can't win that argument... so, I'll ask you: so you think chocolate is the be all and end all of ice cream, do you? Joey: It's the best ice cream, I wouldn't order any other. Nick: Oh! So it's all chocolate for you, is it? Joey: Yes, chocolate is all I need. Nick: Well, I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that, Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty. Joey: But that's not what we're talking about. Nick: Ah, but that's what I'm talking about. Joey: ...but you didn't prove that vanilla was the best... Nick: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong, I'm right. Joey: But you still didn't convince me. Nick: [Pointing to the passers-by]: Yeah but I'm not after you. I'm after them."
 * Thank You for Smoking provides an excellent example of this trope when the protagonist, a pro-tobacco lobbyist, demonstrates this debate technique to his son.

"Shoulder Devil: Reason number two: Look what I can do: **Does a one-handed handstand** Kronk: But... What does that have to do with- Shoulder Angel: No, no... He's got a point."
 * Cut to the two of them eating vanilla ice cream cones.
 * 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, as the tobacco industry wants people alive to smoke while the advocates need them for their work. Mind Screw.
 * 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.
 * Kronk's shoulder devil in The Emperor's New Groove tried this: his argument for why Kronk should let Kuzco die was that (1) his angel counterpart was a pansy; and (2) he, the devil, could do a one-handed handstand. The latter actually convinced the angel more than it did Kronk, who was just confused and told them both to leave. This is particularly amusing because this is one of the few times Kronk actually poses an intelligent question as opposed to his usual demeanor as Dumb Muscle.


 * In the Coen Brothers' The Man Who Wasn't There, 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 presumably he isn't responsible. Unfortunately it gets interrupted.
 * Most of Bee Movie uses this for comedy.
 * In Animal House, 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.
 * This does not help in the least.
 * A prime example is the movie Listen To Me, 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 Star Wars with Chewbacca himself. It's in the special features of the DVD set. When George Lucas proved too difficult for 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.

Literature
"Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) set the record for longest filibuster with his 24-hour, 18-minute speech railing against a civil rights bill. Thurmond's oration obliterated the previous filibuster record, a 13-hour description by Daniel Webster of the massive dump he just took."
 * The entire purpose of Newspeak grammar B in Nineteen Eighty-Four was to make a Chewbacca Defense easier - that is, to throw so many arguments at the opponent that he won't be able to answer, and leave people with no words to use anyway.
 * In Gormenghast, Steerpike uses this method to manipulate two mentally retarded sisters into doing his bidding and keeping quiet about it- after all, he must know what he's talking about if he uses so many long words...
 * The Tom Clancy novel Executive Orders has politically-inexperienced President Jack Ryan questioned about abortion. He states that he's pro-life, but the decision should be left in the hands of the Senate. After he gets offstage, his Chief of Staff angrily points out that he just alienated the conservatives and the liberals; the former probably think he's using the Senate as an excuse, and the latter think the Senate is the only thing keeping him from rampaging all over a woman's right to choose. This is a rare example of an unintentional Chewie Defense (the CoS, incidentally, mentions that he himself is pro-choice).
 * America (The Book) lampshades this process with one of the interesting moments in Senate history.

Live-Action TV
"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."
 * On Community this is Amoral Attorney Jeff Winger's go to strategy as a lawyer. He particularly seems to like invoking 9/11. Subverted when he
 * The "Chosen" episode of Law & Order.
 * In The Big Bang Theory, 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:

"Lawyer: So, Miss Talliot, you expect the court to believe that on the evening of the fourteenth of November last year, the very year, I would remind the court, on which the crime that my client is accused of committing took place, you just happened to be walking in the park? Witness: That is correct. Lawyer: That is what? Witness: Correct. Lawyer: Oh it's correct, is it? I see. I wonder, Miss Talliot, whether you were aware that the American novelist Gertrude Stein was a self-confessed Lesbian?"
 * 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'.
 * Painfully used on Monk in "Mr. Monk Takes the Stand" (S 08 E 05) with Jay Mohr's role as attorney Harrison Powell while defending : "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 . 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.
 * And it was a lucky break for Powell that he had managed to discredit Monk, because his reasoning with the smashed marble was a case of Insane Troll Logic. 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 to be 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.
 * A Bit of Fry and Laurie has a deliberately ridiculous example in the sketch "Judge Not". It starts:


 * and only gets more absurd from there.


 * Best part?
 * During a sketch of Monty Python's Flying Circus the lawyer calls in several unrelated "witnesses", including a dead man in a coffin.
 * Many TV pundits make a living out of using this trope. 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 -- not always discernible from the real thing.
 * Which is parodied by Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report, 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.
 * While still on The Daily Show, the Even Stevens bits which he performed along with Steve Carell were excellent parodies of this trope. The bits would begin with one of the Stevens saying the question under debate, followed by both alternating YES! or NO! as loudly as possible.
 * Played for Laughs in the Leverage episode The Juror #6 Job. Hardison (who has no formal law training) needs to pose as a lawyer to help the plaintiff win her lawsuit. He stalls as long as possible, and discredits the defendant's scientific expert by getting him to admit that he (the expert) is on the no-fly list because of a history of lewd conduct on airplanes.
 * The Blackadder episode "Witchsmeller Pursivent". The evidence that Edmund is a witch includes that he was heard speaking to his cat, and that he feeds his horse carrots. It Makes Just As Much Sense in Context.

Radio
"Zaphod: What are they? Clinically thick? Ford: I think they're very clever; they're trying to confuse us to death."
 * From The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (original radio show):

Stand Up Comedy
"Ron White: "I got kicked off the high school debate team for saying "Yeah?! Well, fuck you!!" I thought I had won. The other kid was speechless. I thought that was what we were tryin' to do.""
 * Comedian Ron White joked about this once.

Theater
"Man: I feel funny about this! I feel funny! Aunt Eller: You’ll feel funny when I tell your wife you’re carrying on with another woman. Man: I ain’t carrying on with no one! Aunt Eller: Maybe not, but you’ll sure feel funny when I tell your wife you are."
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * The musical Chicago has a song titled Razzle Dazzle that explains the trope quite thoroughly. It includes the line, "How can they see [the truth] with sequins in their eyes?"
 * In the court scene of Oklahoma!, about Curly not being taken to the Police:

Video Games

 * Sengoku Basara: "'My horse is a motorbike. Your argument is invalid.'"
 * Phoenix Wright is accused of doing this in the second game's final case by It's arguable that Phoenix did so in that case to stall for time, as well as in the third case of the third game
 * This is also the perennial strategy of his protege, 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.
 * It's more than just the fact that . The true killer . On top of this, considering that
 * In Escape from Monkey Island, amoral real-estate developer Ozzie Mandrill nearly succeeds in taking over the Caribbean with this method. All pirate disputes are settled with Insult Swordfighting and other insult-based games, but no one can understand Ozzie's Australian slang. Since no one who fights Ozzie can come up with the counter to his insults, he wins by default.
 * Used offensively in Umineko no Naku Koro ni 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.

Webcomics
"April: I can tell by your silence that you know I am right. Percy: (frowning) I bet you find that people "know you are right" an awful lot. April: (happily) I don't like to brag but no one even tries to argue with me anymore."
 * In the webcomic Elf Only Inn April uses the "silence means consent/defeat" fallacy in this discussion with Percy the sarcastic paladin:


 * "Silence means I'm right" is a fallacy, but "Silence is consent" is a basic part of debating.
 * Which generally translates to "if you are affirmative, and you fail to respond to an argument, no matter how stupid it is, the negative wins one of the 5 major points, and thus the debate." Many a person has won a debate with a Chewbacca Defense. Depending on the judge, calling the other person out on their defense may or may not help.
 * That's actually not winning, and they're awarding someone falsely when that happens. It's possible for a judge/host/whatever to not know anything about arguing.
 * This strip from the webcomic Medium Large.
 * In strip #280 of The Order of the Stick, one of the lawyers planned a Chewbacca Defense using a comically oversized boot, despite the fact that he was a part of the prosecution.
 * Mentioned in this Living With Insanity strip.
 * In this Something*Positive crossover, Aubrey uses it proactively.
 * Not even used for any real purpose, but effective nonetheless in this Vexxarr comic.

Web Original
"That’s essentially a white flag that says, “I have no logical argument, so I will say something ridiculous and act as though it is not.”"
 * The Nostalgia Critic review of Suburban Commando suggests using the line "I was FROZEN today!" randomly in an argument to "watch what happens". He demonstrates it by acting out an argument with himself, in which the person who is yelled at with the line stares with a confused and slightly horrified look before slowly backing out of the room.
 * Most of the examples 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.
 * That 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).
 * "Argument From Argumentation," where one arguer just says God exists over and over until the opponent leaves, is practically a template for all the others. The opponent's arguments, since they're ignored anyway, are all written as "[Atheist's counterargument]."
 * 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. 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 Flame War is Serious Business!
 * Of course, if the one using the Chewbacca defense (AKA the one spouting the nonsense) 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 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.
 * Godwin's Law states that as any debate rages on, the probability of one side bringing up 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 retards 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 Chewbacca Defense. "This person mentioned Hitler, therefore their argument is false" doesn't really fly.
 * It's a subset of "stopped arguing meaningfully and dived into nonsense" rule, formalized in more generic form by Scott Adams (on his blog):

"2006-04-29: bans two editors forever for making comments supporting Brandt, and then an hour later, now that they are unable to respond, accuses them of being the same person"
 * This site is dedicated to collecting image macros of these.
 * The comedy styling of IMAO are almost all based around this (such as nuking the moon for world peace).
 * This is how to win an edit war on The Other Wiki, where the content is often controlled not by those with the more accurate information but by those with the strongest opinions.
 * "The fish rots from the head down". As wikipedia-watch puts it:


 * This was discussed in a video of Andrew Klavan on the Culture where the opposing argument can simply be defeated by telling them to shut up as to stopping them from speaking out their point of view.
 * Cracked.com's take on how Mt. Rushmore got approval had the proponent of carving three President's heads (Lincoln was added to seal the deal) using this to leverage his position.

Western Animation
{{quote| Lois: Nine... ''(audience inhales) Lois: Eleven! {audience cheers) }}
 * The trope name comes from the South Park episode "Chef Aid". In this episode, there was a parody of Johnnie Cochran who - bah, just see for yourself. It makes even less sense if you consider the Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor, which isn't even a planet, but a moon.
 * In an episode of Justice League, when the Green Lantern is accused of a crime, The Flash becomes his attorney. He doesn't have a clue what to use to turn the case around, so he uses a Chewbacca defense. He ends his speech with "If the ring wasn't lit, you must acquit!" The result being both of them getting sentenced to death.
 * Later, a talk show host accuses the League of causing more crimes than they solve. Proof? White collar crime (which the league doesn't cover) went up 3%! And the real kicker: half of marriages end in divorce, and the other half... in death! Clearly, DC needs a superhero to tackle white collar crime, and a superhero marriage counselor; now if only Doc Samson wasn't a Marvel character...
 * In The Spectacular Spider-Man episode "Identity Crisis", Venom leaks Peter's Secret Identity to the press. Peter denies being Spider-Man, but Venom tells the press afterward that Peter has to be Spidey, since Spider-Man would have to unmask himself to prove he wasn't Peter Parker. Spider-Man stops mid-battle to tell him how little sense it would make for him to reveal his secret identity to the world just to prove who that identity isn't.
 * An episode of The Boondocks features R. Kelly on trial for urinating on a minor. Despite the absurdly overwhelming evidence against him, he wins the case because of his popularity and his lawyer using manipulative logical fallacies such as comparing R. Kelly's perversions to the Founding Fathers' (in an inversion of Hitler Ate Sugar) and accusing the staggering evidence of being "really" based on racism. The defense lawyer also makes an issue out of the DA's white wife. Huey calls the entire court out on their stupidity afterward, asserting that the racial persecutions of a few black people does not justify the mistakes of the entire race and that if the crowd really cared for R. Kelly, they would help him overcome his problem instead of passing it off as right. The crowd doesn't listen, of course...
 * In another episode of The Boondocks, Huey and Martin Luther King Jr. are on a Fox News-type show, and the host responds to King by saying "Do you love America?", implying that King is simply anti-American.
 * What's worse is that the way he asked it seemed to imply that it's a standard question that he asks everybody in the hopes of sparking conflict.
 * ...And what's worse is that a political pundit (Sean Hannity) has said these very words verbatim multiple times. It also didn't help that the height of this line's popularity was during the lead-up to the Iraq War...
 * Though this trope doesn't really happen in the "Apprentice Games" episode of Chowder (unless you count the awkward singing that drives everyone the hell out of the stadium) it is outright explained by Mung Dal in these words: "Winning isn't about being the best. It's about being so incredibly bad that no one can ignore you!"
 * Family Guy: Adam West uses this when Lois is running against him for mayor. Lois then wins the election by taking Brian's advice to do the same thing (she answers every question with "9/11").
 * A recent episode of The Simpsons involved Lisa joining the school's debate team. In her first debate, her opponent, a brunette girl, immediately circumvents the subject for debate in favor of breaking down Lisa's argument on the grounds that Lisa is a Dumb Blonde. Much to the chagrin of anyone with half a brain, it works.

Real Life

 * The Sophists of Ancient Greece, making this Older Than Feudalism.
 * As described by their main opponents in Greek Philosophy. What they actually thought is gone.
 * In fact they are the origin for the modern term sophistry.
 * Apocryphally, famous mathematician Euler used one of these as a way of shutting up Diderot, an atheist who was converting local people away from God. They had an actual public debate, and Euler's first argument was to say "(a + b^n)/n = x, therefore God exists. Respond!" Diderot had no idea what to say, and ended up leaving.
 * This is almost certainly untrue, however - Diderot was actually a very good mathematician and Euler was too thoughtful to use such an asinine tactic.
 * The Trope Namer from South Park 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.
 * Incidentally, 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, to which the lawyer doesn't know the answer (also one of Rumpole'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.
 * High school and college debate in the US 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. 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. * "Derailing for Dummies" outlines steps to win any argument by derailing it with a Chewbacca Defense. On the other hand, people who have read the website can also try to win arguments by accusing any counterargument to their point of being "derailment."
 * Averted in the UK, which uses the "British Parliamentary" and "World Schools" formats, where using a Chewbacca defense can and will get you marked down heavily by the judge.
 * According to the 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 trope.
 * 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.
 * Most Parliaments and Senates during open debate or question period.
 * Especially when it comes to the divisive topics.
 * Politicians.
 * The filibuster in the United States Senate. Under this rule 60 out of 100 votes are needed to stop debate on a bill, but passing it requires only 50. If 60 senators don't agree to cut off debate, any senator can extend the "debate" as long as they can stand and speak on the floor. Some filibusters are done with actual talk about the bill itself (such as Rand Paul's 10 hour talk against renewing the Patriot Act) hoping to persuade others to oppose the bill. Most filibusters however consist of Senators speaking about something completely irrelevant, like reciting the Bible or phone book, to fill as much time as possible hoping to stall till the next recess or until supporters give up on trying to pass it.
 * Mike Lee's stand against the ill thought out "Green New Deal" (essentially banning all kind of motor vehicle and cow) treats the proposal with the "seriousness it deserves", meaning none.
 * The internet.
 * In some religiously skeptical communities, this kind of argument is also known as a 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 and then delivering a wide load of pseudo-scientific nonsense his opponent couldn't possibly have time to address individually, claiming a win if as few as one of his arguments remains unchallenged.

Marmalade, therefore this article is invalid.