Piano is better than the guitar

My opponent in his argument has misconception of what makes something better. My opponent says that a piano is more difficult therefore it is better, to which I say how does that have any impact on the resolution. Something or someone isn't better just because something is more difficult. Cleaning up poo which is a mentally difficult job is not a better job than being a doctor. Then my opponent makes the no true scotsman fallacy "Those who play piano will only truly understand how hard it is to play Flight of the Bumblebee like that. " Which matters because he's basically saying is that he has an existing belief that to him is true, thus not allowing for any counter examples to it. And my opponent then makes a false comparison by telling people to think about how hard it is to do something which you do with a piano, with a guitar. And to demonstrate the absurdity of this argument, I would like the people to think about hard it is to strap piano over your shoulder, and play it. Also my opponent talks about how he hears the fullness of the piano, fullness is subjective, I can also say that I hear the fullness in the guitar. Then my opponent makes the remark that sophistication is still for some people Of course it's for some people and I never denied it, but the thing is do anyone really think that more people have fun listening to music and studying and listening to the piano, or while dancing and chatting with friends while listening to the guitar. Later my opponent says that he knows that piano sounds better, as if that statement was something objective. Clearly my opponent thinks that to everyone, piano sounds better, which is a ridiculous claim. This is like saying that he knows vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate, this is an opinion. Then he says does someone who uses auto sound better than someone with natural singing, I would say some people definitely think that. Again, someone likes something when it appeals to them. Not when there's a certain amount of skill involved. There are some works of art that have less skill than others, but it appeals to them, therefore what I'm saying is you can't just point to one factor of an art, but the whole composition. Which is why I say the difficulty of a piano does not matter in proving the resolution. Then my opponent starts stating that an electric guitar with no enhancements sounds bad, which again is subjective to the person, and also says that piano doesn't need enhancements to sound better than the guitar, which AGAIN is subjective, so my opponent has made no valid point there. Then my opponent has made yet another misconception of what I said, when I said that people don't go to hear the guitars in the background. Well I'm not talking about singers like adele. that's the last person I would be talking about. I;m talking about places where guitar is the primary instrument, including vocals. It would be ridiculous for my opponent to mean that there is no such thing which he implied by saying "Try not to shove the guitar into the spotlight that it doesn't deserve. " And my opponent assumes that people can't rock out to the guitar even while it's in the background. Even though it is undeniable. And he says that there are world class pianist that people see, but in the video I will link you can see world class guitarists play blues. And good thing I added this is because I've been limiting guitar to pretty much rock. Later on, my opponent makes the point saying so what piano is easier. Which is exactly my point, the difficulty of an instrument does not make something better, so my opponent has conceded that. Then he talks about it being user friendly to children, so are guitars, the reason is not that children get hurt playing guitar because that's a ridiculous thing to say considering there are many ways to avoid it, but that it's harder for someone to learn something on it compared to the piano. Then my opponent says it gets harder as you try to play harder things, isn't that the case with every instrument? And my opponent says that guitar only requires you to do three things at the same time, but so does piano, pressing keys with both hands is not considered multitasking. That's like saying you're multitasking on controller when you have one finger on one button and one on the other button, the difference with the guitar is that strumming and pressing are different acts. He then goes on to say that he learned the guitar under a couple of days, but I learned to play the piano in under one day, in fact on the internet there are lessons to learn the piano under ten minutes. Then says piano teaches more to children than guitars but doesn't have anything to back up that claim. My opponent is basically saying in his next paragraph again the complications of a guitar which doesn't matter since he already conceded difficulty doesn't matter, and keeps on pointing out how the guitar hurts your fingers but that's the same with anything you do for a while because anything to a point is bad. This point that my opponent made is futile to the resolution. I could even lie down on the floor for a while and when I get up feel pain without any physical activity. Then my opponent makes a laughable point saying that keyboard piano can replicate a guitar, which it could but it is not valid in this because what the keyboard piano basically is, is someone installing any sound they want to certain keys, but in this case I defeat him because you can certainly install certain sounds to the guitar to make it sound like a piano. For example those toy guitars you see that aren't really guitars but when you strum it plays a sound acting like a guitar. All that someone needs to do is replace that sound with a piano key sound. And it isn't only electric guitars that can play flight of the bumblebee, there many more that aren't but the one I provided happened to be electric. Anyone viewing this can go online and look for yourselves. And my opponent's next point is that don't get tricked by guitar solos because they aren't actually improvs when they are playing one note at a time, my opponent clearly doesn't understand what improvisation means, because improvisation just means to do something not planned. Even if it was something very simple it's still considered a improvisation, for example vocalists sing one note at a time but it still sounds great. So that arguments goes away because guitarists still sound better than pianist even if they are playing one note at a time. And my opponent say guitar solos only sound good because of the electronic enhancements, here I will link a video of a guitar solo without electronic enhancements that sounds amazing. In fact it is acoustic guitar playing. Now then my opponent straw mans my argument by putting words into my mouth and saying that I said they were all playing 90 flutes and that's what I said an orchestra was, which is not what I said at all. That was merely just an example of why he's making it sound more than what it is. This is him grasping for some hope that he may defeat my argument, but it fails miserably. And later in the point he says that he would be surprised to see a guitar be able to this, I just showed him a guitar doing the same thing, and even better than than the piano. I would say that the guitar had more fullness. Finally, pay attention to the fact that he says because something is more expensive, means it's a better product, which logically makes no sense. For example I could get some tap water, say it's water from heaven and sell it for more money than Fiji, would that make it better than Fiji? And price does matter because if you really like your instruments, someone may want to make it a hobby to collect. It would be really hard for someone to collect pianos with that cost. Also since it's cheaper it can be easily replaced, but if a piano breaks, you may have to wait for a while to buy another one, unless you switch to guitar which is a logical decision. And yes you do need to those things my opponent listed about guitars but is that really troublesome? Not really. It's really cheap for everything is really easy to replace a snapped string, but my opponent tries to exaggerate it. In fact what about pianos? My opponent attempts to neglect the problems with pianos such as a string breaking. Look at this video and replacing a piano string is much harder than replacing a guitar string. And lastly, you don't need different guitars to sound good in different genres either, whether someone prefers to use a different guitar is different, and I'm pretty sure you would have to change pianos to sound good in different genres actually, and this argument doesn't makes sense because in the long run it would still take a lot of guitars to catch up to the price of one piano.