Talk:Chewbacca Defense

"confusing, isnt it?" is not a satisfactory conclusion to put an end to this article. As it is touched earlier in the article, using (and or accusing the other side of using) chewbacca defense is a real and working tactic in real life discussions, which leads to the conclusion that this tactic, or technic needs to be well known and mastered to begin with a real life argumentation to make sure that the discussion doesnt come to a dead end. also noteworthy that real life discussions are often not followed purely for the estabilishment by the sides of what can be known about a situation but rather are typically problems raised by one party (interested in a certain outcome) to which outcome the other party may relate in several ways, eg: being interested in preservation of the status quo, or being interested in changing the status quo in a different direction, and/or different magnitude - also real life discussions while involve interests not necessarily take place in a setting with equal access to information. these aspects lend chewbacca defense (and also all other argumentative fallacies) a very real and practical use, different from what is implied in the case of a "mathematically" pure and ideal scholastical debate. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC).
 * What do you want the article to say? It offers a good description of the Chewbacca defence, thorough but not over-long, and will allow you to recognise and name it. There's no certain way to counter this kind of thing. If there was, then everybody would believe sensible things and we wouldn't need 50000 articles on different logical fallacies. --Annanoon (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is while the South Park episode makes a lot of references to the O.J. Simpson trial, the actual event was a considerably different breed of idiocy. The prosecution rushed to trial rather than having a grand jury to make sure the evidence was reduced to its barest essentials, went to trial before all the physical evidence had even been collected, and used a story of domestic violence going back to 1989 which was of questionable relevance. Their biggest screw-up was with the glove that, thanks to what it had gone through, had changed in size — trying to show the glove did fit was sloppy and dumb.(Evaluating the Prosecution's Case, PBS Frontline.) So South Park's "Chewbacca Defense" is from a fictional (and inaccurate) version of an actual case that required ignoring the gross incompetence of the prosecution in the actual case for the joke to even work.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

TVTropes.org
Dear moron who keeps edit warring in a blind panic, look up fair use. You'll note certain exceptions from copyright law. This article is covered under "comment, criticism or satire/parody" Further, TVTropes.org is not the originator of the Chewbacca defense, South Park and its parent corporations are. Finally, you can't copyright tropes. In conclusion, you are wrong. Bye now! 20:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that the trope of the Chewbacca Defense is most of what you said. However, what's at issue here is the description text, which was copied directly from the tvtropes article, and even now over a decade later remains largely intact. If the description were to be rewritten so as to be completely RW-original, attribution would definitely not be necessary. That said, I'm kinda disappointed in my fellow tropers for edit warring instead of trying to have a damn discussion, given that it'd be against policy to do it like that on our own site. We're supposed to be friends here; that's part of why this article even exists in the first place. --2600:1014:B10C:8192:872E:431B:84F2:D585 (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless you want to completely rewrite the description, just be a good sport and add the credit back. 2601:243:701:A830:E930:85E9:579C:DED5 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll add it as an external link. I don't really see how the two articles are enough alike to risk violating Fair Use. 02:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Copyright infringement(?)
I know that you stole from TvTropes. I'm aware that TvTropes didn't make the trope, but the description is copy+pasted from TvTropes circa 2007, when the site used a CC-BY-SA license, which means that you need to give that page the same license, and provide credit for the source.


 * Do you have proof for your claim? Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The oldest RW page does say the text is lifted from TVT. Both articles have changed since 2008, and a link to TVT has since been added (see above discussion). Slocknog (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I fail to see how the current works are close enough to infringe on TVT's copyright. 00:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Rebuttal
Legal Eagle (an actual lawyer) in Real Lawyer Reacts to South Park Chewbacca Defense goes over the episode and legally there is a lot off about it. Which given the quality of most court room scenes on TV (stuff that would not be allowed in a actual US court) makes is effectively useless.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Usd Legal Eagle's real name - Devin J. Stone, Esq. as well as where he is a licensed attorney ( DC, Maryland, Virginia, New York, & California)--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)