Chewbacca Defense: Difference between revisions

{{trope}}

<!-- Cochran states that Chewbacca is originally from Kashyyyk, but now lives on Endor. The footnote is not necessary. -->

 

Confusing, isn't it?

 

{{examples}}

 

* 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.

* In ''[[Mass Effect 2]]'', you have the option of using this at Tali's trial. While you can use more honest methods of defense, this is the only method that saves Tali from exile ''and'' gets you Tali's loyalty. Also, Shepard's Chewbacca Defense, while failing to address the charges against Tali, is based around the accurate point that [[Kangaroo Court|the judges are pursuing their political agendas through this case and don't care what happens to Tali]].

** This nicely outlines the differences between Paragon and Renegade: Renegade!Shep will call the court out for their "political bullshit" (using those precise words), while Paragon!Shep uses their political bullshit against them by pointing out that Tali is the biggest hero of thier race - locking her up would look ''really bad''.

* 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. {{spoiler|She turns out to be really good at it when she's given a chance to think, however.}}

** A lot of internet discussions will also end the moment someone calls the opposing side a [[Godwin's Law|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.

* [http://yourargumentisinvalid.com/ This site] is dedicated to collecting [[Image Macro|image macros]] of these.

* The comedy styling of IMAO are almost all based around this (such as nuking the moon for world peace).

* The [[Trope Namer]] 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.

* 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.