Resolved: PCs are better than Macs

Technology constantly changes but, nevertheless, I shall begin with my defense. Defense: C1. Affordability My opponent has conceded almost my entire analysis of this point. Most people will not be able to buy a MAC meaning they will buy a PC, the rest of my opponents rebuttal deals with how a PC costs more to repair. Then he provides a personal story, which we cannot regard as true as we have no way to verify the facts and a blog. Despite the fact it is a blog and we have no idea who was writing it there are several problems with the blog itself the blog in question is poorly written and has not sourced at all. So unless my opponent can provide a source which is verifiable and written by a professional (not a student) this entire argument is unsourced and unverified. Nevertheless, I shall refute your arguments. What exactly is this person using the PC for? If he is going on sites like "thepiratebay. org" and downloading every piece of software, of course he'll get viruses. If he's looking at a lot of pornography, of course he'll get viruses. If he's clicking on every single flashing banner, of course he'll get viruses. Does he even have anti-viral software? (All this common sense applies to the MAC as well. ) Please find another source. Cross apply my security experts testimony here. C2. a) Once again my opponent cites unverifiable personal stories. How do we know any of them are true? My opponent then goes on to say "Apple doesn't need 80,000 different models. " But, having "80,000 models" allows the buyer to choose exactly what they want to use the computer for. Gaming? High quality processor and graphics card. Email, word, and excel? Probably do not need something as expensive as you will not need the best processor and the best graphics card. My opponent then goes on saying, "dell, toshiba, and hp are basically the only known PC brands. All three of which are terrible. " Well even despite the fact there are well known companies such as Acer out there, my opponent has not stated why Dell, Toshiba, and HP are terrible. It is an unsubstantiated claim. "I'd think you'd want the mac for a higher quality computer. If the internet crashes every time you try and open it, then it doesn't much mater that you saved money on the computer. " If you cannot afford the MAC this is irrelevant. Furthermore, you have provided no source stating the internet crashes this much on PCs. Then my opponent attacks my 8 year old with the book report while missing the entire point of the analogy. The point is, if you are writing a book report why do you need a MAC? b) My opponent begins by stating, "You can toy with a mac and change it. " First, you lose the warranty on your computer if anything happens to it your down $1000 dollars. Second, how can you exactly? Let's take the MacBook Air, do you honestly think anyone would have the technical knowhow to modify this without breaking the computer? And do you think you will have the technological knowhow to build it? My opponent states, "building your own PC doesn't mean it's customized. " But, it can be. That's the point. You can build your own PC and customize it to do whatever you need it to do. My opponent also concedes "it's pretty hard to do all the high precision work needed to make sure a mac is up and running. " In most cases, it is impossible to do so (ie the Mac Book Air). That is what closed system means. C3. Hardware My opponent drops my analysis of this point because apparently Popular Mechanics is untrustworthy. I am going to put it to rest, Popular Mechanics is a magazine written by professionals. I cannot believe my opponent would just dismiss it outright because he does not agree with what they are saying. I am going to treat this as a conceded argument because Popular Mechanics is a technology magazine and is perfectly reliable. I must also remind my opponent, I was citing their conclusions based upon many of the tests they had run. On a side note to my opponent, please do not say my perfectly reliable sources, in an American technological magazine run since the early 1900s, are unreliable when you yourself use blogs in your arguments. C4. Software The two problems with citing how a Mac can run windows is first, if you run windows off of Mac you will slow down the computer quite a bit. This ties back to hardware. Second, it goes against what your arguing. Your trying to argue Mac is better than PC. A Mac includes its OS. If you change to windows OS your computer is nothing more than a PC which looks like a Mac. You will then encounter any alleged problems PCs have as well as the ones Mac's have. I am not arguing PC's are perfect just better. Just as my opponent cannot argue Macs are perfect, just better. I am not saying decide what computer to buy off of one game, I am merely stating there is much more software existing for PCs than Macs. As for your ignorance on file sharing, just because you do not know something does not mean its untrue. C5. Safety First of all, my opponent completely ignores the IT experts I cite to show how personal use of the OS matters the most. My opponent provides no counter source simply stating there are over one million viruses for PCs. You get less viruses if you use the computer well. Once again my opponent uses an unverifiable personal story to make his point. In order to verify his story he must allow me remote access to his computer in order to verify he does not have a virus. I would also like to point out, most computer hackers say Mac's have less inherent security than windows. Take Marc Maiffret he states "Now when you look at Microsoft today they do more to secure their software than anyone. They're the model for how to do it. They're not perfect; there's room for improvement. But they are definitely doing more than anybody else in the industry, I would say […] It's even a little scarier with them because they try to market themselves as more secure than the PC, that you don't have to worry about viruses, etc. Anytime there's been a hacking contest, within a few hours someone's found a new Apple vulnerability. If they were taking it seriously, they wouldn't claim to be more secure than Microsoft because they are very much not. And the Apple community is pretty ignorant to the risks that are out there as it relates to Apple. (1)" As we can see computer hackers believe Mac's are less secure than windows. Opponents Arguments: C1. Developers My opponent chooses one extremely narrow profession to justify why Mac's are better. Most people are not computer software developers therefore; this point would not apply to the vast majority of people. Even so, my opponent is dead wrong, most programmers prefer the UNIX based Linux OS over windows and Mac simply because Linux is open source, very simple, and an extremely compatible OS (2). Linux, not Mac, is the best for developing. C2. Businesses My opponent uses a fallacious appeal to authority in this section of his argument. Kenrockwell. com is a website to tell how to take better photographs. It's a photography website. I seriously doubt whomever is running the site has the expertise necessary to make claims about a computer. This article was not written by an IT professional nor does it cite any IT professionals. Thus, we must hold this entire part in doubt until another source is provided. Even if we take it as true, the fact of the matter is, you are citing one company, one company does not represent the majority of companies. Sources 1. . http://www.neowin.net... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...