General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Just watched the Beto-Servile Dog (Cruz) debate in Texas [View all]Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)Beto offered too many of them, especially during the midsection of the debate when Cruz was cheating the format and finishing with the closing word every time.
Besides, those anecdotes don't score as well as the candidates think they do. I hosted debate watching parties in Las Vegas for a decade. People in my living room would look away or even go to the bathroom when those anecdotes were being abused. After the debate when we would discuss the most important and pivotal moments during the debate, I'm not sure I remember one time when that type of comment earned raves. Cruz was hammering the type of stuff that people care about, even if he was lying or misleading every time.
On CNN when they show the tracking wavelength at bottom of screen during debates, to display how their viewer panel is reacting, the anecdotal moments are invariably a flat line.
The practice is simply over done. This British debate analysis column describes it very well:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/11/how-to-argue-anecdotal-evidence
"Are such stories a good form of argument? They seem to be popular with political speech writers and advertising copywriters who often use them to lend colour and "human interest" to a speech. But as the leaders' debate demonstrated, they can also sound such a false note that they distract from the claims you want to advance. To work well, stories must be in harmony with, and contributing to, your overall argument."
<snip>
"Use your anecdotes sparingly
Even good witnesses should be used sparingly and carefully. Excessive and obvious reliance on them will make it seem as if you can't think for yourself. And it can easily seem pretentious. Someone trying to persuade you simply by dropping names of powerful people they have met or of authors they have read is, to put it mildly, annoying."