Mac computers are better than PC's

So before I start, I just want to go over the burdens of this debate once more. My opponent must prove to all of the judges (the voters) that a Mac computer is better than a Personal Computer. If he fails to prove beyond a doubt that a Mac is better than a Personal Computer, then he loses. I must prove that a Mac Computer is not better than a Personal Computer. Let's move on to his arguments. 1. The security in mind issue. My opponent is pointing the finger at the wrong object. He claims that a Mac is safer than Windows, only because fewer viruses are made for Mac than for Windows. However, he forgets the fact that it is not the OS's fault if the user is an idiot. Let me use another example. Bob and Bill are hammering nails. Bob is a human being. Bill is an alien. Bob and Bill both hit themselves with the hammer, and since the hammer was dirty, Bob gets an infection, while Bill is fine. However, Bob recognized that he was at risk, and could have easily put on gloves that were right next to him. He chose not to. Who do we blame? The hammer? Thank you. This can be taken as a concession from my opponent. Just because he defined a PC as a computer with XP, Vista, or 7 does not mean that we have to accept this definition. As I have shown, your definition for PC is wrong, and I've explained it. Therefore, I actually can win, even if you clarified it, because you clarified it incorrectly. 3. The Default Programs. Just because those programs don't pose a threat does not mean that they are not detrimental. Like you said yourself, they take up space. The hard drive is only limited space, not infinite(that would be very nice). It's like owning real estate, and coming with the real estate are a bunch of people living on the land. You never talk to them, never interact with them, until the day when you use all your other real estate and you have a problem. You're out of space. In this case, non Macs are better than Macs, because non Macs don't all these unused programs on the computer from start up, and it becomes a hassle to get rid of them (if you can, which I don't think you can. ) My opponent then goes on to talk about how they are available, even if you don't use them. He claims that if you want the features, you will have to download them off a third party site, which leads to spyware. Problems: 1. He doesn't cite any examples, so we don't even know that what he is saying exists. 2. Again, is it the computer's fault that the user doesn't have any anti-spyware? 3. For those that do use the program: If they truly wanted the program, would it be incredibly difficult for them to go out and get it? Why do we have to force programs upon people, many of which will not use those programs? 4. Also, you can program an XP computer to run programs on start up. How do I know? Because i also have programs that automatically start up when I turn on my computer. So in this aspect, Mac is still equal to a non Mac. The main difference being: I used it for facts about the OS. You used it for argumentation. I was using the site to draw facts for my arguments. You were using the sites to find those arguments. So my sites are fine. Yours are not. Ok, so now we get to your chart. I like for one, how you forget to mention that it is a review of the 2 operating systems, and is by no means a fact giver. Secondly, you forget that Vista is by no means the best of Microsoft. This review lacks anything about Windows XP, Windows 7, not to mention all the other operating systems out there like all the Linux based OS. Also, you forget to mention all the custom OS made by people. So in reality, you are only sawing off the tip of it iceberg, but by no means is the tip the best part. Also, engadget does not seem very much a unbiased opinion than just a blog run by some person. So your sources are bad. I leave you with that.