Chewbacca Defense

Chewbacca cosplay defense

Cogito ergo sum
Logic and rhetoric

Key articles

* Logical fallacy
* Syllogism
* Argument

General logic

* Axiom
* Masked man fallacy
* Loaded question
* Hypocrisy
* Argument from etymology
* Tontería

Bad logic

* Galileo gambit
* Substituting explanation for premise
* Moral equivalence
* Appeal to money
* Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (español)
* پاسخ کورتیر

v \- t \- e

“”Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

—Johnnie Cochran being parodied on South Park

The Chewbacca Defense is any legal or propaganda strategy that seeks to overwhelm its audience with nonsensical arguments, as a way of confusing the audience and drowning out legitimate opposing arguments. It also has, intentionally or unintentionally, 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 flimsy, right? Right?

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. If you can get the opposing side to shut up, then 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. It is most commonly found in democratic debates, since a dictatorship would only bother with this strategy if it were too weak to silence the opposition directly.

## Contents

* 1 Origins
* 2 Key characteristics of a Chewbacca Defense
* 3 Common (and sad) examples
* 4 Analysis by actual lawyers
* 5 See also
* 6 External links
* 7 References

## Origins[edit]

The term comes from, surprise, a South Park episode from 1998 ("Chef Aid"). It is a parody of Johnnie Cochran's famous closing argument in the O.J. Simpson trial.[1]

Cochran
…ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Gerald Broflovski
Damn it! He's using the Chewbacca defense!
Cochran
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.[2]

The parody shows the Chewbacca Defense as being doubly senseless, since Chochran's premise is false from the beginning: Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor, but on the Millennium Falcon.

## Key characteristics of a Chewbacca Defense[edit]

* Accusing one's opponent of something unrelated to the subject matter at hand.
* Repeating a point over and over.
* Shouting. The logic behind this is that if one's voice is louder, they will seem more powerful, and powerful people always win.
* Not giving the opponent a chance to talk.
* Filibustering: that is, interrupting one's opponent and/or talking about nonsense purely to delay and lengthen the debate.
* Repeatedly bringing up semantics or nitpicking the opposition. This has the effect of either tiring out and distracting the opponent, or simply wasting time.
* Hitting one's opponent rapid-fire with so many bogus arguments that they cannot keep up unless they write them all down and painstakingly address them one at a time. This lets the debater claim that their opponent's failure to answer a few points is proof that they couldn't answer.

## Common (and sad) examples[edit]

The common Chewbacca Defense is based on the following misconceptions and/or fallacies:

* If you can prove the other side wrong (even if they are wrong about something totally irrelevant), 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 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.
* If you can make an opponent look bad, their logic must be equally bad, and therefore you are right.
* If you are more popular or have more support than your opponent, it makes them wrong and it makes you right because more people agree with you.
* 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, 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?

## Analysis by actual lawyers[edit]

Devin J. Stone, Esq. (aka LegalEagle), a licensed lawyer in DC, Maryland, Virginia, New York and California, notes the episode in general contains several things that would never happen in a real world case and various inaccuracies (such as actions that would be limited to a criminal case occurring in a civil case), giving the episode a "C-" for legal accuracy.[3]

Meanwhile, Legal Geeks (a pair of e-Discovery attorneys) argue actually an example of jury nullification. They also state that an actual judge would likely say, “I have a bad feeling about this” and possibly declare a mistrial if such an argument was made in court. They then stated "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." [4]

## See also[edit]

* Argumentum ad nauseam
* Creationism
* Gish Gallop

## External links[edit]

* Chewbacca Defense on TV Tropes

## References[edit]

1. ↑ YouTube - Johnnie Cochran closing arguments
2. ↑ Americans can watch the scene here. The rest of the world: go fuck yourselves.
3. ↑ Real Lawyer Reacts to South Park Chewbacca Defense, YouTube.
4. ↑ A Legal Analysis of The Chewbacca Defense, The Legal Geeks.

v \- t \- e

Articles about logical fallacies

Informal fallacies: |  Appeal to tradition • Appeal to novelty • Appeal to nature • Argument from morality • Argumentum ad martyrdom • Big words • Certum est quia impossibile est • Morton's fork • Friend argument • Exception that proves the rule • Extended analogy • Hindsight bias • Race card • Moralistic fallacy • Release the data • Gish Gallop • Terrorism-baiting • Uncertainty tactic • Greece-baiting • Ham Hightail • Red-baiting • Gore's Law • Nazi analogies • Mistaking the map for the territory • Red herring • Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur • Presentism • Sunk cost • Two wrongs make a right • Flying carpet fallacy • My enemy's enemy • Appeal to ancient wisdom • Danth's Law • Argumentum ad lunam • Balance fallacy • Golden hammer • Loaded question • Escape to the future • Word magic • Spider-Man fallacy • Sanctioning the devil • Appeal to mystery • Informal fallacy • Common sense • Post-designation • Hyperbole • Relativist fallacy • Due diligence • Straw man • Good old days • Appeal to probability • Infinite regress • Circular reasoning • Media was wrong before • Is–ought problem • Ad iram • Just asking questions • Pink-baiting • Appeal to faith • Appeal to fear • Appeal to bias • Appeal to confidence • Appeal to consequences • Appeal to emotion • Appeal to flattery • Appeal to gravity • Appeal to hate • Argument from omniscience • Argument from silence • Argumentum ad baculum • Argumentum ad fastidium • Association fallacy • Broken window fallacy • Category mistake • Confounding factor • Counterfactual fallacy • Courtier's Reply • Damning with faint praise • Definitional fallacies • Equivocation • Fallacy of accent • Fallacy of accident • Fallacy of amphiboly • Gambler's fallacy • Imprecision fallacy • Moving the goalposts • Nirvana fallacy • Overprecision • Pathos gambit • Pragmatic fallacy • Quote mining • Argumentum ad sarcina inserta • Science doesn't know everything • Slothful induction • Spotlight fallacy • Style over substance • Toupee fallacy • Genuine but insignificant cause • Argument from incredulity • Appeal to age • Argumentum ad nauseam • Phantom distinction • Appeal to common sense • Argumentum ad hysteria • Omnipotence paradox • Argument from etymology • Appeal to trauma • Countless counterfeits fallacy •
| Ad hoc: |  No True Scotsman • Moving the goalposts • Escape hatch • Handwave • Special pleading • Slothful induction • Nirvana fallacy • God of the gaps • PIDOOMA • Ad hoc • Tone argument •
| Arguments from ignorance: |  Science doesn't know everything • Argument from incredulity • Argument from silence • Toupee fallacy • Appeal to censorship • Science was wrong before • Holmesian fallacy • Argument from omniscience • Willful ignorance • Argument from ignorance •
| Causation fallacies: |  Post hoc, ergo propter hoc • Correlation does not imply causation • Wrong direction • Counterfactual fallacy • Regression fallacy • Gambler's fallacy • Denying the antecedent • Genuine but insignificant cause •
| Circular reasoning: |  Infinite regress • Argument by assertion • Argumentum ad dictionarium • Appeal to faith • Circular reasoning • Self-refuting idea •
| Emotional appeals: |  Appeal to fear • Appeal to emotion • Appeal to confidence • Deepity • Argumentum ad baculum • Appeal to shame • Appeal to flattery • Tone argument • Appeal to money • Argumentum ad fastidium • Appeal to gravity • Appeal to consequences • Loaded language • Style over substance • Appeal to pity • Appeal to hate • Pathos gambit • Shaming • Degenerate • Abomination •
| Fallacies of ambiguity: |  Fallacy of accent • Equivocation • Fallacy of amphiboly • Quote mining • Fallacy of ambiguity • Moral equivalence • Scope fallacy • Suppressed correlative • Not as bad as • Etymology • Continuum fallacy • Wronger than wrong • Definitional fallacies • Code word • Phantom distinction •
Formal fallacies: |  Confusion of the inverse • Denying the antecedent • Non sequitur • Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise • Not even wrong • Affirming a disjunct • Illicit process • Four-term fallacy • Negative conclusion from affirmative premises • Fallacy fallacy • Substituting explanation for premise • Enthymeme • Syllogism • Formal fallacy • Existential assumption • Masked man fallacy • Self-refuting idea • Argument by gibberish • One single proof • Affirming the consequent • False dilemma • Conjunction fallacy •
Fallacious arguments: |  Bumblebee argument • Fatwa envy • Gotcha argument • Hoyle's fallacy • Intuition pump • Logic and Creation • Not Circular Reasoning • Peanut butter argument • Great Beethoven fallacy • Fallacy of unique founding conditions • Evil is the absence of God • Argument from first cause • How do you know? Were you there? • Argument from design • Argument from beauty • Appeal to nature • Solferino fallacy • Religious scientists • Nothing to hide • Argument from fine tuning • Creep shaming • "I used to be an atheist" • Atheism as a religion • Argumentum ad populum • Argument from morality • Anti-environmentalism • Appeal to bias • Apophasis • Argumentum ad nauseam • Appeal to censorship • Argumentum ad sarcina inserta • Blaming the victim • Bait-and-switch • Danth's Law • Canard • DARVO • Demonization • Escape hatch • Friend argument • Everyone is racist • Gish Gallop • Greece-baiting • Gore's Law • Ham Hightail • Just asking questions • Leading question • Loaded language • Linking to authority • Loaded question • Lying by omission • Motte and bailey • Nazi analogies • Moving the goalposts • One single proof • Pink-baiting • One-way hash argument • Pathos gambit • Quote mining • Poisoning the well • Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur • Race card • Red-baiting • Red herring • Release the data • Science was wrong before • Shill gambit • Straw man • Silent Majority • Uncertainty tactic • Style over substance • Terrorism-baiting • Weasel word • What's the harm (logical fallacy) • Whataboutism • Bullshit • Logical fallacy • Banana argument • Scapegoat • How come there are still monkeys? • Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white • Ontological argument • Omnipotence paradox • Presuppositionalism • Just a joke • Countless counterfeits fallacy •
Conditional fallacies: |  Slippery slope • What's the harm (logical fallacy) • Special pleading • Conditional fallacy • On the spot fallacy • Appeal to the minority • Argumentum ad populum • Galileo gambit • Professor of nothing •
| Genetic fallacies: |  Genetic fallacy •
|  | Appeals to authority: |  Ipse dixit • Appeal to confidence • Argumentum ad populum • Argument from authority • Linking to authority • Silent Majority • Invincible authority • Appeal to celebrity • Ultracrepidarianism • Appeal to the minority • Galileo gambit • Appeal to identity • Weasel word • Professor of nothing • Euthyphro dilemma • Divine command theory •
|  | Ad hominem: |  Ad iram • Argumentum ad cellarium • Bulverism • Poisoning the well • Blaming the victim • Tu quoque • Whataboutism • Nutpicking • Jonanism • Demonization • Shill gambit • Appeal to bias • Fallacy of opposition • Association fallacy • Damning with faint praise • Pathos gambit • Appeal to identity • Argumentum ad hominem • Nazi analogies • Not an argument • Nothing to hide • Scapegoat • 地下室论证 •
| Imprecision fallacies: |  Apex fallacy • Overprecision • Cherry picking • Overgeneralization • Texas sharpshooter fallacy • False analogy • Appeal to fiction • Spotlight fallacy • Pragmatic fallacy • Selection bias • Anecdotal evidence • Category mistake • Nutpicking • Imprecision fallacy • Confounding factor • Fallacy of accident • Neyman's bias •
Valid logical methods: |  Rapoport's Rules • Negative evidence • Reductio ad absurdum •
Fallacy collections: |  SeekFind • Nizkor Project • Fallacy Files • Your Logical Fallacy Is • Logically Fallacious •