Flash the rhetorical problem you face is that you made your anecdotes central to your entire argument here. They serve as the foundational basis of what you're saying. So because you chose to do that, I choose to dig into this anecdote because all anecdotes are filtered through inherent biases. Like your biased belief that insitutional racism doesn't exist and doesn't put obstacles and roadblocks in front of people who aren't privileged like you.
If you were to do what you did in a regular debate, you'd be disqualified. Or the opposing side would seize on it exactly as I have here. So by invoking these dumb anecdotes, you don't increase your credibility, you throw it all into question. Because an intrepid or savvy person will start asking questions that you either can't or won't answer, and that has the effect of casting everything else you say into doubt. In a real debate, the moderator would have invalidated your statement because it was anecdotal and unverifiable...therefore not admissable.
So I am indulging you by talking about this wife of yours, the details of which you are obscuring for effect. So you toss something out there, knowing it can't be validated, in a cheap and bad faith attempt to bridge the credibility gap you have.
