1. Yes, I have in fact heard that term, which is exactly why I know that anecdotal evidence is not valid.

2. What does invalid evidence add to the discussion, exactly?

3. There are people in this thread who are arguing for legislation restricting ownership of pitbulls. We are in the court of public opinion, which may be less formal than the supreme court, but still has the capacity to influence public policy. So it seems reasonable to apply a very basic standard of evidence, above that of stuff that random people claim happen to their friend's roommate.

So you've never heard the term "anecdotal evidence" then.

As I recall, it is generally brought up to point out how worthless it is in any particular debate.

But, go on....

Personal evidence is anecdotal, I never said it wasn't? There is nothing wrong with someone sharing a personal story to add to the discussion was my point.. Which I thought I made clearly.

Right, but you were dismaying people who refute your anecdotes "because it doesn't fit their narrative", which is a perfectly valid thing to do with anecdotal evidence, as it is itself an attempt to build a narrative.

being cautious about dog breds bred over a hundred years of more for violent traits is much the same argument as being cautious about black people*' false equivalence again.

Racist would often say the similar things about black people in America. Slavery lasted well over a hundred years and slave owners would often have slaves who were brought up to be prize fighters.

Then also expect people to dismiss that anecdotal evidence as irrelevant

My contributions are not anecdotal

https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/dog_bite_risk_and_prevention_bgnd.pdf