"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. 126.96.36.199 (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)