This troper ''loves'' this trope. He will use it in nearly any verbal argument. To name an occasion, my brother and I were once having an argument. With some careful wording and three minutes, we were soon talking about the goodness of humanity.

The class jerk in this troper's class uses this *always* when I prove her wrong.

This troper had this actually used against him in a class-sponsored Evolution vs. Creation debate. Despite the heavy creationist bias in the school (I was a liberal Christian in a very conservative Christian school), I thought I had a serious chance of winning the evolution side until the opponent pulled out a diagram of a cell and asked how it could have a occurred naturally. Despite the fact that we were arguing about a specific part of evolutionary theory (forget which, but needless to say that was irrelevant to the discussion). I was speechless. No winner was called, but I'm pretty sure the class sided with my opponent. The moral of the story, ladies and gentlemen, is that biology teachers shouldn't hold debates.

Sometimes I do this. If I can't think of anything, I just throw back whatever they said with "your mom" taped onto the front, but sometimes I ramble on about nonsense and make references to things they would never understand in order to confuse them to the point that they forgot what the argument is about. I can never win an argument like this, but I can stop a verbal beatdown.

In a high school class debate, This Troper inadvertently pulled this off. The debate was over whether or not the 2007 troop surge in Iraq was a good idea, and if we did not then we needed an alternative strategy that had actually succeeded in similar historical circumstances. I decided to propose that the US set up a network of microbanks, based on reading some articles that microbanks had made a positive impact on many struggling economies, and therefore improve the conditions in the country. This plan, while technically meeting the criteria of the assignment, was full of holes (and involved morally shady measures to fund it); nonetheless, I was able to spend the entire debate proving my opponents wrong because none of them were familiar enough with microbanking to attack my own position.

Show me a team debater who tells you s/he's never used a ChewbaccaDefense, and this troper will show you a liar. Before long everything is just so well researched, that a Chewbacca defense is the only thing they won't have an answer for in their files.

This troper was once in a debate with a classmate. His side: Manslaughter should get the death penalty. My side: No, it shouldn't. Just for background: we were not allowed to attack the death penalty in and of itself; we had to assume it was fair for murder and go from there. We were going along fairly logically, then I said that it shouldn't be because manslaughter is unintentional, and killing someone who has done something through negligence or idiocy doesn't work. #QUOTE#'''Classmate''': Yeah, well, if you do that then you end up with some mass murderer getting out because of insanity like in ''TexasChainsawMassacre''!\\ ''I am literally speechless, since he had just cited a ''work of fiction'' that I had not seen.''\\ '''Class at Large''': ''[cheers]'' Oh, you just got '''owned'''!\\ ''I'm now speechless and utterly confused in a 'What. The hell.' Sort of way.''

One day, I told my friend about the JFK assassination conspiracy theories and how insane some of them were. Then, my friend proceeded to create his own which said that my grandmother was the assassin who was sent by the Soviet Bloc and who had escaped afterward to atone for her sins. I think she was a teenager around this time. Wanna guess how he argued how this was plausible? It was, however, very amusing to listen to.

Internet discussions are special. This editor used to act mature and read other people's arguments on the subject before writing a reply. After putting up with too many immature people who use InsaneTrollLogic and flawed logic to prove their bias, he gave up. When he reads something he doesn't agree with, he uses ChewbaccaDefense. It might not convince the person he is arguing with, but it's fun.

That's a vicious cycle you're perpetuating there.

This troper uses it for some comedic effect in some discussions, when the situation allows for it. This troper's father, on the other hand, does this ALL THE TIME, to the point of being his signature tactic in any kind of debate he takes part in. The worst part is that he happens to use it in EVERYTHING, which can be extremely distressing when you're on the losing side of a serious conversation.

A friend of mine uses this all the time. He honestly seems to think that if the other person stops arguing then you've won the argument. One time he even said something like "I'm good at arguing; I always win!". Jaw=dropped. His tactics include focussing on some meaninglessly simple part of the debate, looking like a smug git, talking over everyone else, physically blocking the other person from the conversation, denying that any opposing evidence is valid and good ole godwin's law.

At one point on Absolute Punk.net, somebody mentioned a gag on the ColbertReport about Stephen and an actor playing a cop trying to freak anybody who was high at the time out by mentioning that they were at their door. One forumgoer was for some reason offended by the post which was summed up as "it'd be funny if it actually worked." Their argument against the supposed thought that it always works this way was to say the original poster "Didn't understand '''the complexities of the pot subculture.'''" Nobody was sure what they were talking about and establish pot users called him out for embellishing how complex using marijuana is.

This might be stretching it but... I used the Chewbacca defense, almost verbatim, as the closing for an in-class mock trial. I say "almost" because I also added throwing a 4 and a half foot tall Scooby Doo plushie into the jury. My opening was the chorus for the Rick Astley hit "Never Gonna Give You Up". Subverted in that I still had an actual opening and closing to give... regardless, I won.

Played with in this one occasion: I fought for two hours with some random girl because she said snakes are not vertebrates (and maintained the opinion as it were some kind of great truth). Then, after I realised whe wouldn't hear me, I started to reapeat "snakes have bones, therefore are vertebrates" over and over again until she, tired of arguing, yelled "OK! WHATEVER! SNAKES ARE VERTEBRATES!" and left the room. After that I found out she was a master of Chewbacca defense, so my taste of victory was even better.

My older brother enjoys using this, since he's an occasional gadfly. So we're arguing, and it's getting more heated, and we're both literally foaming with anger, and I'm about to slug him one good, when he suddenly says "Whoa, whoa, calm down! Jeez, it's not a big deal!". This just makes me angrier since he was just as angry as I was not ten seconds ago. And if I decide to punch him anyway, he'll say "What the hell?! I was trying to stop this argument!" Now, you may think he was really trying to stop this argument, but he says these with a smug grin, like he's some enlightened soul, and I'm a violent {{Jerkass}}.

My dear troll who trolled me two weeks ago did this. He said stuff like "I OWNED YOU with your own post" without actually finding and looking and seeking out evidence to prove that he was right and I was wrong. I mean he could've actually bothered with evidence, to prove his sadass point, but all he did was threaten me and state over and over again that he won, when he hadn't actually won. He also pulled out the You Just Contradicted Yourself fallacy (I can hate a person, laugh at their down fall, care about the person and be dissapointed with their progess at the same time). People can have two oppinions about a person. For Your Information! It was alternating childish threats and throwing amataur attempts of my own statements back at me. (like I called him delusional he decides he's going to use that against me without evidence to prove the contrary)

This is a ''troll'' we're talking about. As in, a sweaty basement dweller who amuses himself by duping people into arguing against him. The fact that he got you arguing with him at all means he won regardless of how meaningful his statements were.

This troper, in the middle of an argument, just said, "You know what? Lesbians, that's what." When the non sequiter was pointed out, she accused her opponent of being against lesbians. Said opponent was gay, by the way.

This troper and an acquaintance have a RunningGag about the earth being flat...well, her acquaintance does anyway. His method of "proving" that the earth is flat is to yell "THE EARTH IS FLAT!" over and over again while running around the room in hysterics.

I use this everywhere. It's how I win all my arguments. Stick to your guns even if you know you're wrong, keep yelling and eventually your opponent will give up. Foolproof!

This troper uses the ChewbaccaDefense in a strategic manner focusing more on proving my opponent wrong. (Even if this troper knows that he is wrong...) Oddly enough this has never backfired... Go back to ChewbaccaDefense, but you are not welcome there because you failed math last year!