The people who have gone through the program and adhered to its tenets have achieved not only sobriety but a fuller life. Most of them will testify to that. I'm a little confused as to how you can say that the program was irrelevant, when the people who actually experienced it differ. It occurs to me that if there's any "argument by anecdote," it is coming from YOUR side.
Logically, your argument makes no sense. "Since as many people achieve success without the program as achieve success with the program, the program is not effective." That's like saying that half the people climbed the mountain via Path A, while another half got there via Path B, so Path A is not passable.
I've never said the 12-step program was the EXCLUSIVE solution to addiction. I just said it was effective.
Because on the larger scale, people are more likely to quit alcohol by themselves than with AA. This discredits the claim that AA is somehow more effective than getting no treatment.
OTOH, if AA actually does work for certain people, that's great. I do not favor abolishing AA, but the attitude that it's the only way (you may not think it, but that's the way it's preached), and how it's hyped as the best way to quit drinking is false.
On a personal level, I disagree with the basic tenets, which is that one is powerless to change himself, when it is exactly personal power over his life that he needs. The "alcohol is a disease" angle also pisses me off. As Stan said, cancer is a disease, just stop drinking. If you need help, fine, but you don't have a disease.
It could also be related to the fact that AA is religious proselytization in the guise of treatment.