Why I Avoid Anecdotal Evidence | Champion Briefs
← Back to Blog

September 10, 2014

Why I Avoid Anecdotal Evidence

By Christian Chessman

Introduction

Relevant literature on the September/October 2014 sports topic appears to come predominantly in one of two forms: academic pieces and opinion news articles. While the latter vary strongly in terms of quality and length, my experience reading them has revealed an overarching theme: they rely on anecdotes. This makes sense, given the structure and purpose of news media: to draw attention and create revenue through sales. It is undoubtedly true that anecdotes can serve as powerful tools for illustrating a specific point. Anecdotes have limited argumentative function, though, because their utility and applicability becomes increasingly stretched as the principle they are offered to support becomes increasingly general.

This presents a problem for using evidence from articles which base their assertions on anecdotal stories. Many of these articles discuss public subsidies for professional sports organizations in context of one project for one team for one state for one sport. Even if the facts and conclusions asserted by the article are taken as true, they are likely insufficient to support an argument or debate case because of their limited nature.

Debaters should be cautious of anecdotal articles which offer limited proof, but nonetheless make the logical leap from their anecdotal example to a general assertion. For example, an article may assert that the Miami Dolphins Stadium is profitable and therefore football stadiums are generally profitable. These articles are tempting to use as evidence, because the hyperbole that typically characterizes such slipshod writing makes for powerful debate evidence. Debaters should resist succumbing to that temptation for both normative and strategic considerations.

Normatively, debaters should stand for high evidence standards and principled scholarship. Debaters must typically "power tag" or twist evidence which makes bald, unabashedly conclusory, or otherwise unsupported assertions. Succumbing to the impulse to use "bad" evidence will only degrade the overall quality of debate in the community as debaters replace analysis with empty hyperbole and sophistry. Strategically, debaters who read rhetorically powerful though logically unsupported evidence are vulnerable to quick and incisive analysis from their opponents. Skilled opponents can dissect even the strongest rhetoric. Debaters are strategically best suited by avoiding anecdotal evidence despite the frustration that results from regularly encountering articles that cannot effectively be carded.

Debaters who wish to dismantle anecdotal evidence – and limited analyses generally – can identify several important differences that control the logical relevance of an argument. These differences, as well as their various implications, will be examined in depth below.

Differences Across Sports

The umbrella of "professional sports organizations" covers a broad range of activities. Debaters are likely familiar with the refrain that even debate counts as a sport. The core "professional sports organizations" include the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League, and the National Basketball Association. Other professional organizations exist farther from the core of common professional sports but likely still qualify are Minor League Baseball, Major League Soccer, the American Boxing Association, the American Tennis Association, the American Biking Association, and the American Swimming Association. Fringe "sports" likely include NASCAR (because of its arguable similarity to several Olympic Winter sports like luge), the PGA Tour, American Fencing League, the USA Track and Field Association, the American Ultimate Disc League (Frisbee), and the National Speech and Debate Association.

Alright, maybe not that last one.

As the sheer size of this list should indicate, it is very difficult to make accurate general assertions about "professional sports organizations". It is true that many of the above-listed professional sports are not funded by the majority of municipalities. Still others listed above are not funded at all, which adds a measure of limitation to the scope of the resolution. Even accounting for this limit, there are plenty of sports that remain relevant to the discussion.

The diversity of sports options has significant implications for making general conclusions from anecdotes. Each professional sports organization – and professional sport – has elements that distinguish it from its peers. The three primary axes of difference are contracting regulations, average player salaries, and playing field size and venue.

Major sports organizations – such as the National Football League – hold monopolistic power over the provision of their respective professional sports in the United States. Because of their size and the high level of demand, cities are likely to concede lower stadium rent rates, higher bonuses for teams, and higher team retention of broadcasting and concession revenues. Smaller sports organizations have a measure of this power, but are limited by their comparatively smaller demand. The American Soccer League is certainly unable to make the same demands of local communities that the National Football League makes.

Diverse sports can also be distinguished by the average cost needed to sustain them. The cost of a major league baseball stadium is substantially higher than the cost of a smaller minor league baseball stadium. Both of those cost more than a soccer field and stadium; and a soccer field costs less than a tennis court. The differences in size and cost can affect major arguments on the topic. For example, smaller sports stadiums which cost less money may result in net economic gains for the venue, unlike their major league companions. Similarly, smaller venues are less likely to require eminent domain usage and therefore less likely to displace people. Where eminent domain is ultimately necessary for smaller venues, it necessarily displaces fewer people than when it is exercised for larger venues.

In the same vein as the above analysis, it is worth noting that some sports have shorter (or longer) season lengths and therefore accrue revenue for less (or more) time. The season for professional football runs substantially longer than the season for professional tennis, for example. Teams might also play higher number of games per season – for example, Major League Baseball plays 162 games[i] in approximately the same time as the National Football League plays 16 games[ii]. This matters for topical academic literature which suggests that a higher total number of games played increases the length of time the "novelty effect"[iii] persists, which raises local municipality revenue returns.

These facts can be used individually or collectively to distinguish anecdotes about a single particular sport from the pantheon of "professional sports organizations" generally. Debaters should research material differences between sports generally and be ready to identify them to defeat their opponents’ use of anecdotal evidence.

Differences Across Level

Almost every major league sport has a corresponding minor league – including the NFL[iv], MLB[v], the NBA[vi], the NHL[vii], and Major League Soccer[viii]. These leagues are no less important – either in terms of their impact on communities or their relevance to the resolution – and distinguish themselves from major leagues in a variety of ways. Perhaps most directly, players in these organizations receive smaller salaries from cities and municipalities. The exorbitant costs of major league player salaries[ix] are simply absent from minor leagues, which may be a deciding factor in economic debates on the resolution.

These leagues also tend to negotiate venue differently. For example, because of their size minor league stadiums are more likely to be capable of supporting multiple sports in a single stadium as seasons shift. These "multi-purpose" stadiums have higher levels of economic efficiency because they spend less time unused, and therefore have an economic effect on local communities that is statistically distinct from the effect of single-purpose stadiums[x].

An additional result of the size differential between major and minor league sports relates to the disparity in contract negotiations. As noted above, minor league sports have less monopolistic power than major league sports. This decreased leverage makes them less likely to win one-sized or unfair agreements with local cities. As a result, many of the abuses traditionally associated with major league sports are largely inapplicable to minor league sports. As noted effectively by Justin Katz in his topic analysis[xi], quantitative frameworks for evaluating "on balance" may make this difference extremely important.

Answering Anecdotes

Though anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to logically prove an argument, it certainly serves to persuade judges. If debaters fail to respond at all to such evidence, it may be sufficient to win a round for a team. This section will detail the two primary ways debaters can answer anecdotal arguments in a time-efficient way.

The most important element in answering an anecdotal argument is identifying factors that distinguish the anecdote from the majority of situations (or from situations identified in your case). For example, if an affirmative debater cites an anecdote about fair and balanced negotiations between minor league hockey and a city, the negative can respond by explaining that such fair negotiations are likely the product of the size of minor league hockey and are inapplicable to the majority of professional sports negotiations in the United States. In this case, the distinguishing factor is "league size", and should be explicitly identified to the judge. Debaters should not merely assert that they are different and then explain the difference – they should give the differentiating factor a brief label to make it easy for the judge to retain. Judges are unlikely to absorb "the complexities of contract negotiation between different economic powerhouses", but are likely to remember "size matters".

The second argument that should be deployed when answering anecdotal arguments is a burden argument. Debaters answering anecdotes should assert an affirmative burden on their opponents. Debaters need not prove their opponents’ examples irrelevant: the opponent must prove the example relevant. The burden of proof lies with the opponent, because the opponent is advancing a particular claim. Therefore, they must prove that their anecdotal example applies to all or most situations before the judge should even consider it. Otherwise, it is no more than a convenient FYI .

Caveat Emptor

Though anecdotes cannot substantially prove an argument, they are not wholly useless for debaters and should be taken seriously when used in rounds. Anecdotes can serve nonsubstantive purposes such as evoking emotional reactions or sympathy from a judge, or by serving as an example that illustrates a complex concept. These are all legitimate uses that may well be essential to creating resonance between an argument and a judge. When facing effectively deployed emotional anecdotes, debaters should invest substantial time distinguishing that anecdote from the majority of situations.

Conclusion

Debaters are frequently faced with evidence that is primarily substantiated through anecdotes. This evidence has powerful uses and applications in debate, though it cannot stand to prove a proposition on its own. Champion debaters should be cautious when answering anecdotes and do so thoroughly to ensure that they do not improperly carry the day for a judge.


Works Cited

[i] http://www.howbaseballworks.com/RegularSeason.htm

[ii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_regular_season

[iii] The "novelty effect" refers to an initial spike in resource use after a new consumable item has become available. For example, new stadiums see periods of high attendance immediately after their construction, which plateaus as the "novelty" wears off. See also: Roy, Donald "Impact of New Minor League Baseball Stadiums on Game Attendance". Sports Marketing Quarterly. Volume 17, Issue 3. September 2008. Pp 146-153. http://search.proquest.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/docview/227963531/fulltextPDF?accountid=10920

[iv] Corresponding minor league: the Arena Football League, not affiliated with its corresponding major organization.

[v] Corresponding minor league: Minor League Baseball, affiliated with its corresponding major organization.

[vi] Corresponding minor league: NBA Development League, affiliated with its corresponding major organization.

[vii] Corresponding minor league: there are six, none of which are affiliated with the corresponding major organization.

[viii] Corresponding minor league: North American Soccer League, not affiliated with its corresponding major organization.

[ix] Payton Manning alone receives a salary of over $15,000,000.00

[x] Dixon, Stephen. "Publicly Owned Single Purpose Stadiums and Multipurpose Arenas: A Comparative Analysis of Economic Characteristics and Use Diversity". Rutgers University. May 2013. https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/40543/pdf/1/

[xi] See the Champion Briefs September/October brief for full access to Justin’s analysis.