What follows is a consideration of the kind of issues that surrounds this kind of dispute that aims at allowing one to think through the subject matter.
The problem with this question is that the subject matter is not KNOWN somewhere to an expert in the way that the habits of a mountain marmot in a specific region are known to some expert. It is not a mater of fixed behavior. There are authorities who are assumed to have some expertise in such maters as statistical evaluations, but the application of this knowledge is not itself objective. We have to appeal to authority.
The common authoritative view, at least the one one runs into the most often in a university, runs: "the plural of anecdote is not data". Why is "anecdata" defective? This could be legitimate if it involves a field where an exact training in observation and techniques are involved, what someone once saw happen, and what a trained biologist can reproduce in a cell culture, may be quite different matters. On the other hand, the general data, when in a political matter, is set off against an anecdote, the issue is not (primarily, and for the most part) whether the things really were seen, or whether some matter was correctly observed, but whether it was an outlier, a rare case, and not the normal or most widespread case. It may be true that you experienced muggings ten times in Chicago, but that does not show that muggings are more frequent in Chicago than in other cities, it may point to your habit of murky dealings concerning illicit materials and treacherous persons.
The other thing is, in a political issue, how much you care about something matters. So weight rather than number can come in. Some experiences are more formative than others, more far reaching in their life consequence.
If someone claims something general, let us say, that antibiotics are dangerous, that may be true in the sense that they can be misused, that they require responsible use, but it isn't enough to say I know someone who died from their misuse in a hospital if what one wants is to show a statistical preponderance that proves their standardized use is dangerous and that they should be removed from hospitals or their standard use radically modified. One case could simply be the "exception that proves the rule".