Now don't get me wrong, I get the idea behind this. If you have 10 examples of experts who back your point and I have one, it makes sense, I'm not talking about cases like that.
I'm talking about cases where someone is being emotional and ignorant, I come up with examples of experts or eyewitnesses who have good reason to say otherwise, and then they'll say, "Yeah, well that's just 5 people, what about the other 3 million?"
So here's the thing, I can't interview 100,000, much less 3 million, or 140 million. Even 1000 is a lot of work and would take a while, and still be a minority in many cases. The thing is, if I have 5 people, and the opposition has nothing other than biased media reports and emotion, I really don't think shutting me down with this argument is valid, and it certainly doesn't convince me of anything.
Does anyone else have personal experience with this and are tired of hearing it? Again, I'm not talking about a case where they have 10 people and you have one, that's perfectly valid.