pc is better than mac

My opponent has kindly provided me with quite a sampling in these few terse sentences, and I have high hopes of more to come in his last two rounds. With that, let me remind my audience of the resolution for this debate. "PC is better than mac because WINDOWS IS MORE COMPATIBLE. " I quote my opponent. He set this impossible premise; not I. And with that, he committed one of the the most common mistakes of new debaters: 1. Improperly worded resolution. Basically, when you start a debate, make it winnable. Do not paint yourself into a corner by making a contradiction in the very first sentence of your round. Problems with this particular wording: a)Change of terms. He first speaks of PC's, and then of Windows. PC =/= equal Windows, PC = Personal Computer; which made it childishly simple for me to win IN THE VERY FIRST ROUND by showing all Macs are PC's. b)Undefined terms. What on earth does "compatible" mean? Software? Or, as he drifts on in the rest of his round, keyboard shortcuts and customizing? He then commits the cardinal error of new debaters; the worst thing you can do in a debate. Worse than insults, worse than bad grammar, worse even than circular reasoning: 2) Statements instead of arguments. "Let's face it people, all software out there support windows. " This is a statement. It can be falsified easily with a little elementary research, as I did. It is not an argument. Now, don't misunderstand me; debates are supposed to start with a statement; a clear, carefully worded statement called a Resolution or a Proposition, clearly labeled and explained later. But, if your round consists only of statements, you have given us no reason to believe you. Convince us. Give us reasoning, arguments, reasons to change our minds. My opponent in both rounds has posted no arguments, and thereby has wasted two whole rounds. He expects us to take him at his word that Windows machines are better than Apple machines. Which brings us to the next error of the beginning debater: 3)No sources. My opponent has not even attempted to back up any of his claims with evidence. In the debating world, unverified statements are considered false until the debater takes the time to back them up. When you craft your round, make sure you can back up what you say by links or citations from relevant, trustworthy, relatively unbiased sources. This may take considerable digging; simply citing Wikipedia is not usually adequate. Another serious error on my opponent's part: 4) Undefined Terms. He laid himself wide open for a sematics argument by not providing any definitions. Had he carefully defined his terms, I would have little room to twist his words into an argument he could not win. As it was, I was the first to post any definitions. The general rule is that the first posted definitions are the ones used in the debate; especially if the instigator is the one defining. Dictionary. com is a very good source for definitions, as are online non-wiki encyclopedias. I indicated several possible paths last round I could have twisted this debate down had I chose, simply by choosing a definition. The debater would be wise to avoid ambiguity in crucial terms. ------------------- With that, I turn my attention to my opponent's second round. It seems equally instructive. "I am very sorry to say but. .. IT'S THE MONEY STUPID! " I am sorry to find my opponent reduced to this state. He has no response to any of my refutations other than to insult my intelligence. Here he commits a serious error: 5) Ad Homniem. This is a failure in logic, where he attacks me rather than my argument. My intelligence or lack thereof has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments, and statements like this are attempts to influence the voters emotionally despite the weakness of his arguments. (Or baseless statements, in his case. ) Next, please. "If you're got a lot of extra spare cash laying around that you don't care about, then by all means, buy a Mac. But if, like most of the world, you've got to work for a living, then you'll find that a PC's is far less expensive than a Mac. " First, his statement here is on the compared PRICE of Windows machines and Apple machines, and is completely irrelevant to a debate on the COMPATIBILITY of same. This debate is on compatibility, as he established at the beginning. His statement here is an attempt to change the resolution mid-debate, which is VERY bad form, and I will not stand for it. Second, he did not do his research. At the bottom of this page, . http://www.apple.com... you will find a little statement: Buy iMac from $1199. He mentions Alienware; I looked it up. Here is a comparable Alienware computer, although it does not include a monitor; buying one will increase the price. . http://www.amazon.com... Notice the price: from $1,799.99 The point of even considering his statement? Do not post something you know nothing about! The research I did to disprove this point took me all of thirty seconds; debaters would be well advised to do their own research so that their opponents will not catch them flatfooted. "And if you are a gamer like me than PC is better! "OHHHHH WE CAN USE BOOT CAMP" are you kidding me? ?? ? PC all you do is pop the CD and play the game. " Nice to know; but completely irrelevant. This argument goes off on a tangent to the original resolution; convenience has little or nothing to do with compatibility. Another thing to keep in mind when framing your debate: 6) Keep arguments on topic. You may rant for 8000 characters on any topic you choose; but you will win or lose on how well you handle the topic of the debate. --------- Some may ask: "But aren't you off-topic yourself? This entire round, have you argued your own case at all? " I have dealt with the original resolution in my first round. He has done nothing to refute my arguments there. Nothing. He has not challenged any of my sources, definitions, or points. He has given no alternate explanations for "compatible," on which his only hope for success in this debate rested. He has not challenged my argument that all Macs are PC's, thus conceding this point _and the entire debate. _ I have all the time in the world to rip my opponent's posts to quivering shreds, as I have already won. Inescapably, utterly, inevitably won. My opponent is an example of what bad form in debating will do to the unwary; I am taking my time to make an example of him, so that he and the other new debaters on this site may learn better habits of thinking. --------------------- Two more points. ". .. All great computers like Ibuypower and Alienware are all pc. " Yes, these ARE PC's. This sentence shows a deep understanding of this vital concept on my opponent's part. iMacs are ALSO PC's. I have shown this in my first round, and he has not contradicted me yet. . http://www.cray.com... Cray = great computer. Cray =/= PC. "And windows is more compatible in software. .. ." A statement. Proof, please? He now indicates that he meant "compatible in software. " I have shown that Mac computers can run software, that there are programs that Windows machines cannot run natively, and that with the use of emulators either OS can run exactly the same programs. In other words, he has yet to begin to prove his point. I refer him to my first round, in which I detailed what this site expects from him (. http://www.debate.org... ); even though he cannot win, I still hope he will give this debate a much stronger effort in his next two rounds. .