"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. 18.104.22.168 (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)
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! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 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 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. — Unsigned, by: 2601:647:8003:9350:f519:d4b7:f784:f78 / talk / contribs
- 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)
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)