Troperville
Help us survive. All donations are anonymous on the wiki and unacknowledged, as we don't wish to create a hierarchy among Tropers.
Editing
Tools
Toys
|
"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!
"I bet you think you can psych me out by saying really random stuff!"
Has nothing to do with threatening to rip your opponent's arms off if they beat you at chess, 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 Chewbacca Defense 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 Chewbacca Defense 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 Chewbacca Defense 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 Chewbacca Defense, because there's no other reason to do so in a debate.
Oh, and don't make the foolish mistake of trying to fight fire with fire here.
The common Chewbacca Defense is based on the following 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: Godwins Law)
- If you are 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.
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?
Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey!
*pop*
Unfortunately, very very much a case of Truth In Television. 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.
The reason this works, in real life, is because a basic concept of Argumentation and Debate is "Silence is Consent" i.e., if you don't voice objection, you are by default agreeing. It also helps that debating isn't about who's right, it's about who makes the better impression.
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 Reverse Funny Aneurysm.
Examples:
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.
- To top it off, the film begins with Naylor (somehow) 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.
- Plus when Joey has to write an essay on what's best about America, Nick says it's "Our endless appeals system."
- In the John Waters movie Pink Flamingos, 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."
- Liar Liar, 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 coins in his hand were a knife. He knocked him down and ony 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 his action was 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 eye of the policewoman. 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 Liar Liar 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.
- Kronk's shoulder devil in The Emperors 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 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' {{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.
- This image
 ◊ sums up this trope nicely.
- Most of Bee Movie 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 astounds 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 Real Life 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.
- 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 America the Beautiful.
- 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.
Western Animation
- 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 should also be noted that the so called "Chewbacca defense" was being employed by the prosecution.
- In an episode of Justice League, when the Green Lantern is accused of a crime, The Flash becomes his Ace 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 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) went up 3%! And the real kicker: half of marriages end in divorce, and the other half...in death!
- 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 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 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' (the Founding Fathers did it, therefore it's right) and accusing the staggering evidence of being "really" based on racism. 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.
Video Games
- My horse is a motorbike. Your argument is invalid.
- Phoenix Wright is accused of doing this in the second game's final case by his long lost rival, Edgeworth. I mean, Phoenix gets the real killer in the end, but... 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 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 - 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 (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 instate a jury-based court system just so the Chewbacca Defense can easily work.
- Technically, he was working to instate aforementioned jury system so that defendants can be tried not just on evidence, but on testimony and perceived criminality. He's not trying to subvert the justice system, just make it more robust: 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 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.
Other
- 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.
- The Sophists of Ancient Greece, making this Older Than Feudalism.
- Pretty much any forum out there on the internet (politics, religion, video games, etc.) 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!
- A lot of internet discussions will also end the moment someone calls the opposing side a 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.
- 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.
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?"
Live Action TV
- Some TV pundits make a living out of using this trope on national television.
- Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report 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.
- The "Chosen" episode of Law And Order.
Webcomics
- In the webcomic Elf Only Inn April uses the "silence means consent/defeat" fallacy in 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.
- This strip◊ from the webcomic Medium Large.
Literature
- 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.)
Stand Up Comedy
Real Life
|
|
