[[SouthPark http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/chewbacca_defense.jpg]]
[-[[caption-width:250:"Ladies and gentlemen of this ''supposed'' jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."]]-]

->'''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}}!''

->''"I bet you think you can psych me out by saying really random stuff!"''
->--Sora, '''[[KingdomHearts Kingdom Hearts II]]'''

Has nothing to do with threatening to rip your opponent's arms off if they beat you at chess or its equivalents, though it operates on similar principle.

In war, if the opposing side pulls back and raises the white flag, you've won. Some people like to think that this strategy also works in the art of debate - that if you can get the opposing side to shut up, you're right by default.

The sad part? ''It works''. Not just in media, but in real life, too. In fact, most political systems are ''based'' on doing this. No, seriously.

A ChewbaccaDefense is part of an argument that intentionally or unintentionally has the effect of confusing the opponent so that they will 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?

Sometimes a ChewbaccaDefense is not so easy to spot, as there's often debates that aren't supposed to be so but are rather drawn out. Or are just held by lousy debaters. Key signs of a ChewbaccaDefense include:

* Being accused of loving or hating X, where X is a subject rather unrelated to the debate.
* Being insulted, except when it's a relevant point that happened to be insulting. (e.g.: Saying to someone that they couldn't get into MENSA because they have a tested IQ of 75 is insulting but also very relevant)
* Having a point repeated over and over again, unless it's clear that that point has been continuously ignored rather than countered.
* Any time a person raises their voice or doesn't give the opponent a chance to talk back. This is nearly always a sure sign of a ChewbaccaDefense, because there's no other reason to do so in a debate.
** That is unless you provoke another person to do so, usually by talking over them until they are forced to yell. Then you act as though they were yelling out of the blue.

Oh, and don't make the foolish mistake of trying to fight fire with fire here.

The common ChewbaccaDefense is based on the following [[YouFailLogicForever misconceptions and/or fallacies]]:

* If you can prove the other side wrong, it makes you right.
* 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.
* 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: GodwinsLaw)
* If you are [[QualityByPopularVote more popular than your opponent]], it makes them wrong and it makes you right.
* If you just keep arguing and shouting, even if everyone else (not just everyone else in the debate - everyone else ''in the world'') thinks you are not just wrong, but ''insane'', until everyone else just gets tired of listening to you spew nonsense, you're the last man standing, and, by default, you are right.
* And of course, that Chewbacca lives on [[InferredHolocaust Endor]].

Unfortunately, the mere existence of the ChewbaccaDefense 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?

Here, look at the monkey. Look at the [[EverythingsBetterWithMonkeys silly monkey]]!
''[[YourHeadASplode *pop*]]''

Johnnie Cochran, a real life high powered attorney who is credited with this concept, died in 2005 from a brain tumor, which makes this a HilariousInHindsight trope.

Unfortunately, very much a case of TruthInTelevision. According to troper research/testimony, approximately 1/3 of all people say that they genuinely believe that the opponent backing down is a victory. As a tip, it's a good idea to ask someone about if they believe that too before going on a date with them: it's very hard to live with someone who does. It is notable, however, that in a criminal trial this is, to an extent, true - if the prosecution is proven wrong or collapses, the defendant of course must be acquitted, i.e. O.J., which is where the TropeNamer gets its parody.
----
!!Examples:

[[foldercontrol]]

[[folder: Film ]]

* ''{{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.
-->'''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 defintion of liberty.\\
'''Joey''': But that's not what we're talking about.\\
'''Nick''': 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'']: It's not you that I'm after. I'm after them.
** 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 its the cancer victims' advocate who's selling death, as the tobacoo industry wants people alive to smoke while the advocates need them for their work. MindScrew.
**Plus when Joey has to write an essay on what's best about America, Nick says it's "Our endless appeals system."
* In the JohnWaters movie ''PinkFlamingos'', Connie and Raymond Marble, after trying and failing to wrestle the title of The Filthiest People Alive from Babs Johnson and her extended family, are put on trial by Babs. Since the Marbles are bound and gagged, they can't say anything in their own defense, leading to the following: "Is there any cross-examination? No? A very strange defense, I must say. Gentlemen, the verdict is guilty on all ten counts of first-degree stupidity."
* ''LiarLiar'', a film about ace attorney Fletcher Reed, who's son's birthday wish makes him unable to lie for just one day, which may ruin his career. Jim Carrey plays Fletcher, and in a cut scene he's defending a thug for armed robbery and assault. His client is accused of mugging an old man at the ATM with a knife and beating up the cop who responded, a woman. In a true Chewbacca Defense, Fletcher argues in his closing that it was all just a big mistake. His client had the knife for protection walking in a bad neighborhood. When he came to the ATM, he was surprised by an old man who had turned around suddenly, thinking light shining off coins in his hand was from a knife. He knocked him down and only then realized his error. He went to pick the money up for the old man. Quoting the Good Samaritan verse of the Bible, Fletcher claims although he did mistakenly attack the old man but then sought to help, picking up the money, to be followed the man himself. The action was supposedly like in the Good Book, playing up for an elderly juror (clearly a risk for his client) but who's also very religious. When he was picking up the coins, suddenly a police car drove up. The officers threw him up against the hood and he fought back, breaking the nose and blackening the eye of the woman. Her partner subdued him. He was just defending himself, Fletcher argues, saying we don't live in a police state. This summary can't do it justice--rent ''LiarLiar'' and watch that delected scene. By the end, although it's obviously fake and for comedy, I almost thought he made a good argument. What's most convincing is the utter shamelessness which he gives it. That's what convinces people the most, I think, while playing on their prejudices.
**Then, of course, there is Fletcher's long-suffering elderly secretary, who finally quits, repeating the old urban legend of the cat burglar who fell into the kitchen, cuts his leg on a knife, then sues the homeowner he was about to burgalarize. "Because of men like you," she says, "he won. Is that justice?" No, says Fletcher-he would have gotten the man more money (he's unable to lie at this point.) Needless to say, she's not happy with his answer.
* Kronk's [[GoodAngelBadAngel shoulder devil]] in ''TheEmperorsNewGroove'' 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 handstand. The latter actually convinced the angel more than it did Kronk, who was just confused and told them both to leave.
* In the Coen brothers' ''TheManWhoWasntThere'', ace lawyer Freddy Riedenschnieder seems to base his career on this. His defense of the protagonist's wife involves a truly baffling spiel about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
* Most of ''BeeMovie'' uses this for comedy.
* In a "movie of the week" from the 1980s, ''{{Do You Know the Muffin Man}}?'' based on the [=McMartin=] daycare child abuse case, the prosecution proposes a horribly convoluted, difficult-to-follow argument for the guilt of the accused. It stounds like a Chewbacca Defense, and is a good example for someone who wants to hear just what this trope is about, although since in the story, the accused is supposed to be guilty, and the members of the prosecution team are the white knights, this is probably just an example of bad script-writing. This is probably justified in that the [=McMartin=] daycare folks were not only found innocent on all charges, the RealLife arguments in favor of guilt were, indeed, horribly convoluted and difficult to follow, and were torn apart by the public defenders appointed to the [=McMartins=]. It basically boiled down to: When children say they were molested, they were. When they say they weren't molested, they were. If they say they were and then change their minds, they were. This was the argument for basically all charges of child molestation in TheEighties-we've since gotten better, thank goodness. ''The Indictment'', a more accurate 1995 TV film about the McMartin trial, gets it right. At one point, the defense lawyer asks one witness to identity photos of suspects the McMartins supposedly pimped him to. Among those identified? Actor Chuck Norris and Mayor Ed Koch of New York City. Plus, the counselors (with no degrees or formal training) put the MindScrew on them all to get testimony, with the original accusation made by a schizophrenic woman. Her husband ''was'' a child molester, but the rest she imagined.
* In ''AnimalHouse'', Otter somehow turns the charges against the Deltas for having sex with their drunk party guests into an attack on the fraternity system, which is an attack on college, which is an attack on America. Then all the Deltas march out humming America the Beautiful.
* A prime example is the movie ''ListenToMe'', where the debates got so convoluted, that you didn't know if either team was for or against abortion. It starts off with the protagonist's team being against abortion, and ends up with them being ''for'' it in the ''same debate''.

[[/folder]]

[[folder: Western Animation ]]

* The trope name comes from the ''SouthPark'' episode "Chef Aid". In this episode, there was a parody of Johnnie Cochran who - bah, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense just see for yourself]].
** It should also be noted that the so called "Chewbacca ''defense''" was being employed by the ''prosecution''.
* In an episode of ''JusticeLeague'', when the GreenLantern is accused of a crime, TheFlash becomes his AceAttorney. 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 doesn't fit, you must acquit!"
** 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) [[LiesDamnedLiesAndStatistics went up 3%]]! And the real kicker: half of marriages end in divorce, and the other half...in ''death''!
* In ''TheSpectacularSpiderMan'' episode "Identity Crisis", Venom leaks Peter's SecretIdentity to the press. Peter denies being Spider-Man, but Venom tells the press afterward that Peter has to 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 illogical that would really be.
* An episode of ''TheBoondocks'' 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 [[YouFailLogicForever logical fallacies]] such as comparing R. Kelly's perversions to the Founding Fathers' ([[BandwagonTechnique the Founding Fathers did it, therefore it's right]]) and accusing the staggering evidence of being "really" based on racism. [[WiseBeyondTheirYears 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...
** However, an equally valid defense for R. Kelly in that episode was used by Riley: "If she didn't wanna get pissed on, she could have moved out the way!"
*** Consent is not a defense to statutory. The girl being 14, it likely was.
*** Not a defense the lawyer could use but [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification the jury could]].
* 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!"

[[/folder]]

[[folder: Video Games ]]

* '''[[SengokuBasara My horse is a motorbike. Your argument is invalid.]]'''
* ''PhoenixWright'' is accused of doing this in the second game's final case by [[spoiler: his long lost rival, Edgeworth.]] [[FamilyUnfriendlyAesop I mean, Phoenix gets the real killer in the end, but...]] 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]]]].
** 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 ([[spoiler:he only wins the case because he threatens to call a decisive witness, causing the real killer to break down and confess]]). Also note that behind the scenes, Phoenix has been trying to [[spoiler:instate a jury-based court system]] [[FridgeLogic just so the Chewbacca Defense can easily work]].
*** Technically, he was working to [[spoiler: instate aforementioned jury system]] so that defendants can be tried [[spoiler: not just on evidence, but on testimony and perceived criminality]]. He's not trying to subvert the justice system, just make it more robust: [[spoiler: as he well knows, evidence can be manufactured, falsified, and destroyed, and the current justice system has no way of dealing with that]].
**** All the more important, as [[spoiler: he's doing it to take down the man responsible for his disbarment, an insane attorney who, after a high-profile client fired him in favor of Phoenix, hatched an insane scheme to ruin Phoenix's life and eliminate all the evidence that would implicate himself, up to and including murdering his unwitting accomplice. This is a man who would not hesitate to manufacture, falsify or destroy evidence to suit his goals; not even Phoenix's trusty mind-reading Magatama can break through his mental barriers. The Jurist System that Phoenix works to reinstate is literally the only way to stop him.]]

[[/folder]]

[[folder: Other ]]

* Most of the examples [[http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm here]] are spoofs of the ChewbaccaDefense.
** 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.
* [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism The Sophists of Ancient Greece]], making this OlderThanFeudalism.
** [[StrawMan As described by their main opponents in Greek Philosophy]]. [[LostForever What they actually thought is gone]].
* 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 FlameWar is SeriousBusiness!
** A lot of internet discussions will also end the moment someone calls the opposing side a [[GodwinsLaw Nazi]], racist, homophobic, 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''.
*** And don't forget the religious version: ''I will pray for you.''
*** 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 definition 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.

[[/folder]]

[[folder: Theater ]]

* Cicero's "Pro Caelio" is an excellent example of this, using everything from immense verbosity to the mangling of a certain woman's already questionable character to pull the judges completely off-topic and acquit Caelius, the man he is defending (who was most likely guilty of at least three of the charges against him). Most of Cicero is like this; the reason the man was a great (if not good) lawyer is that his cases were nearly always completely indefensible, and he still nearly always won.
** Indeed, the Chewbacca Defense was basically the basis of the law system of the Roman Republic. A lawyer's job was, through emotional manipulation, to get the jury to like him better than the other side, regardless of the facts. It was widely accepted that it was a second-rate lawyer indeed who had to stoop to arguing dry legalities.
* The musical ''{{Chicago}}'' has a song titled Razzle Dazzle that explains the trope quite thoroughly. It includes the line, "How can they see with sequins in their eyes?"

[[/folder]]

[[folder: Live Action TV ]]

* Some TV pundits make a ''living'' out of using this trope on national television.
** Which is parodied by Stephen Colbert of TheColbertReport, who uses several variations of this when arguing with his guests, such as asking them why they hate America, and bombarding them with foolish overblown questions. He's even done this when arguing with ''himself'', creating circular arguments along the lines of the following: If you were sent to Gitmo unfairly, you'd be angry enough at the government to want to overthrow it, and hence you'd deserve to be sent to Gitmo.
*** While still on ''TheDailyShow'', 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.
* The "Chosen" episode of ''LawAndOrder''.
* In ''TheBigBangTheory'', Sheldon proves an exemplar of this. He gets into an argument with Stuart, the comic book store manager (about which Robin would make a better replacement Batman). They argue for hours, until Stuart says that he's tired of it and going home. They have this exchange:
-->'''Sheldon:''' Then I win.
-->'''Stuart:''' No, it's late and I'm tired.
-->'''Sheldon:''' Then... I win.
-->'''Stuart:''' Fine, you win.
-->'''Sheldon:''' Darn right I win.
** His friends often don't even bother trying to argue such is Sheldon's committed use of this trope, Leonard even admitting 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. "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 the killer [[spoiler: smashed apart and distributed across his driveway]]. His lawyer brought in a wheel barrow of said marble, claiming that if Monk's theory held up they'd 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 the lawyer discrediting Monk by citing his psychological instability, which Monk 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.

[[/folder]]

[[folder: Webcomics ]]

* In the webcomic ''ElfOnlyInn'' April uses the "silence means consent/defeat" fallacy in [[http://www.elfonlyinn.net/d/20070509.html this discussion]] with Percy the sarcastic paladin:
--->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.
** "Silence means I'm right" is a fallacy, but "Silence is consent" is a basic part of debating.
* [[http://mediumlarge.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/medlarge371.jpg This strip]] from the webcomic ''Medium Large''.
* In strip #280 on the webcomic "The Order of the Stick" one of the lawyers planned a Chewbacca Defense using a comedically oversized boot, despite the fact that he was a part of the prosecution.

[[/folder]]

[[folder: Literature ]]

* The entire purpose of Newspeak grammar B in '''1984''' 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.
* 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 TomClancy novel ''ExecutiveOrders'' 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.)

[[/folder]]

[[folder: Stand Up Comedy ]]

* [[StandUpComedy Comedian]] Ron White joked about this once.
-->'''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."
* "[[EddieIzzard I claim this land for England!]]" "You can't claim this land, there's five million of us here." "Do you have a ''flag''?" "Well, no, but..." "No flag, no country! Those are the rules, the rules I just made up."
** And I'm backing it up with ''this gun''.

[[/folder]]

[[folder: Real Life ]]

* [[http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/euler.html 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 a difficult math problem. He then followed up with "Therefore God exists. Address!" Diderot had no idea what to say, and ended up leaving.
* Politicians often do this. The best example this troper can think of came during the 2008 Vice Presidential Debates; Sarah Palin dodged several questions from the moderator in succession, and then the moderator called Palin on her behavior. Palin replied that she wanted to speak directly to the American people, and continued dodging questions for the rest of the night.
** [[YouShouldKnowThisAlready She was]] ''lambasted'' for it.
** Even more famously, President Bill Clinton's definition of "is" defense, as well as many aspects of the Bush (G.W.) administration's proofs that Saddam and Iraq were supporting terrorism, specifically Al Quaeda.
*** Technically Clinton's "is" defense falls under quibbling. An unfortunate phrasing by the questioner left an opening for his (unstated) argument: that "President" Clinton did not do any of the things he was accused of. They were done before he took the office of the presidency, thus they were committed by "Governor" Clinton.
*** It fails the ChewbaccaDefense criteria by being logical and related to the argument. Hairsplitting and dastardly intentions do not a ChewbaccaDefense make.
*** Recent attempts to label all those critical of President Obama as racists also seem to fall under the umbrella of demonization equals win.
***People don't argue that "all" are racist...but many are, and happen to be accommodated and justified by party leaders and people who should know better.
* A world-renowned biologist once told this troper that she -- like every other reputable biologist she knows -- refuses to debate evolutionary theory with creationist spokesmen, as such debates invariably turn into a volatile, contrived ChewbaccaDefense by the publicity-seeking creationists. Naturally, the latter cite this refusal as proof that she knows she can't win, not that she won't dignify their posturing with a response.
* The TropeNamer was based on Cochran's defense of O.J. Simpson, which succeeded largely 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".
----
<<|AbsurdityAscendant|>>
<<|CrimeAndPunishmentTropes|>>
<<|TruthInTelevision|>>
<<|MadnessTropes|>>