The PS3 is better than the Xbox 360.

And I am thoroughly looking forward to this debate. Before I post my arguments against the resolution, I wish to focus on three of Mike's points to begin with a rebuttal. Rebuttal #1"Thirdly, lets take a look at the controllers. The PS3 runs on fully rechargeable, wireless, Sixaxis controllers, while the Xbox 360 has controllers which take a lot more effort to charge, and the Xbox 360's controllers has easily jammable buttons"Unfortunately, that is wrong. I have owned both an XBox and a PS3 during my life and I have to say, the PS3 controllers were not as good. A PS3 Controller (when recharging) can use a wire which runs from the back of the console to the controller, which is exactly the same for XBox. I have found no difference in ease of charging between the two. You also say the PS3 controllers are wireless, so just to let you and the audience know, so are the XBox ones! Lets move on to the jamming of buttons. I have been gaming since I was 10 and have seen quite a few changes to the console scene, especially within controllers, so I know what I am talking about here. PS3 buttons are closer to the surface of the controller compared to the XBox ones by a few millimeters. This means when pressing them down, you have 'millimeters' more of a chance to get them wedged in there. As for the control sticks, the gyro-balls or ball bearings within the control stick are tighter in the PS3 controller, once again causing them to be less easy to maneuver, and not to say more of a chance of sticking. To point out to you, the difference between the life of my two controllers from their respective consoles. I spent about nine to ten hours a week using them and this is how long they lasted. Year One: XBox Controller perfect condition PS3 Controller becoming a little old Year Two: XBox Controller becoming a little old PS3 Controller buttons becoming a little slow to pop back up Year Three: XBox Controller still OK, old, but still working. PS3 Controller pretty much unusable Rebuttal #2Lastly, before you bring up any of the 2010 PSN hacking scandal, I want to bring these points to you.1. The PS3 was not an intended target because of their security. Everyone is talking about how the PS3 security was "at fault" and that the PS3's security "sucks". This is untrue. It is because the group of hackers were professionals. They could of hacked the Xbox 360's network if they wanted too, but they chose a target at random, and chose the PS3's, which is known as PlayStation Network.2. The PS3's security has improved over the years. Many attempts to hack PlayStation Network has failed, due to the vast improvement in security.3. A network outage like what happened two years ago will never happen again. These outages are prone to happen once in a consoles lifetime, and it happened here, with the PS3. This cause a vast improvement in security, as I have stated above, and ensures that these things will never happen again. Just to point out, the hacking scandal lasted a month, and involved the personal details of the 77million users being stolen. Only a week after Sony realised the security had been breached, did they alert the 77million users that their details had been stolen. This has never happened to XBox LIVE. I will argue each of your three points above now;1) The reason why you pay a lot of money a year for LIVE is to help Microsoft pay for the security systems. This security IS different to the one PSN uses, as LIVE is encrypted whereas PSN was simply coded. 2) & 3) Unfortunately, this still doesn't mean that the scandal can be overlooked. It was one of Sony's lowest moments, which I doubt will ever be forgotten. Rebuttal #3Next, the games. PS3 has hundreds of original titles, only available for the PS3, which are far better than some of the popular games for both consoles out there. This does not mean that the popular games are bad, but instead shows that the PS3 exclusive games are good. Xbox 360 has FAR fewer original titles than the PS3, which is another reason why the PS3 is superior. Actually, no. Have a look at this source, I do not need to explain. Scroll down towards the Game Selection section, and read away my friends! . http://www.hardcoreware.net...I now move on to my arguments. Case #1XBox Kinect is something that has revolutionized gaming, by the fact that you do not need a controller to play the game, YOU are the controller! You may say that PS3 has got something similar out, but you still need a controller for it. For PS3, you have to hold a remote sensor in your hand, Nintendo Wii style. But in Kinect you need nothing, just you and a sensor bar! Playstation move console costs around thirty to thirty-five pounds, whereas Kinect costs around twenty to thirty pounds, just to let you know about the price difference. Case #2Graphics. This is a sticky subject for a lot of fanboys. A very common argument in most flame wars is that the Playstation 3 simply “has better graphics”. I’m not sure where that argument came from; Sony obviously did a good job of marketing the system. However, the argument is entirely false. The Xenos GPU on the XBOX 360 is superior the RSX on the PS3. Why? Because Xenos simply has more power – higher fillrate, higher pixel processing power, higher vertex processing power, and better memory architecture. If you look at multiplatform games and contrast the graphics on the two consoles, XBOX 360 almost always leads. Whether they use a higher resolution or higher quality antialiasing, games often look better and/or play smoother on the 360. I think I cited a source, but just in case: . http://www.hardcoreware.net...;That is all from me, thank you all for reading, and I bid you farewell until next round.