Mac computers are better than PC's

Before I start, I'm going to define terms that my opponent forgot to define. These all come from Merriam Webster better;more advantageous or effective Also, there is a problem with one of my opponent's arguments. A PC is also known as a personal computer. personal computer: a general-purpose computer equipped with a microprocessor and designed to run especially commercial software (as a word processor or Internet browser) for an individual user So here are first, my arguments. 1. A Mac, by definition is a personal computer. Therefore, it cannot be better than itself. For instance, you cannot say that a book is better than a book. So there is the first problem, and that essentially takes out his entire argument. I've won at this point. I'll add some more later. but this point alone can win me the debate. Please note that in this debate, the burdens are this: My opponent must show how a Mac Computer is better than a PC, and I must show otherwise. Since I have shown that a Mac Computer IS a PC, and it cannot be better than itself, I win. Let's move onto his own points. 1. Security in mind. A virus or malware has nothing to do with the OS. Mac OSX is not affected, but only because there are very few out there. However, a nonMac user getting a virus is only one person's fault; the user. If anything, Mac's are more vulnerable, because they are drawn into a false sense of security that their mac is safe, when the non Mac users have a firewall and anti virus, and are actually safer. For instance, a hacker could just as easily write a virus for Mac than for non Mac. This first issue my opponent brings up is only the user's fault, not the computer. You don't blame the house when it falls down in an earthquake, you blame the builders who forgot the nails. Same thing. You don't blame the computer when it gets a virus, you blame the user who forgot to get an anti-virus. So this point is moot. 2. Microsoft also has auto update. So in a sense, Microsoft also gets better with age. So Macs and non Macs are still equal. I'm still winning. 3. That may be helpful to those who use it, but is only detrimential to those who don't. For instance, my mother has a MacBook, and she never uses these programs: iChat iPhoto iDvd iLife iWork iCal Mail PhotoBooth GarageBand Yet all these programs come with the computer, and take up valuable space on her hard drive. Keep in mind that this comes out of the box. Also keep in mind that eg. Windows XP does not have all this extra software. That have the OS, and one or 2 trial programs that can be easily deleted. So actually, XP is better that it only gives you what you need, and if you need something else, obtaining it is not a problem. 4. Reliability. Quite frankly, I don't quite buy this argument, given that you haven't quoted any sources. .. Aside from the incredibly biased Apple site. Can you prove that crashes are quite common? I've been using the computer I am using to type this argument for 3 years now. I've only upgraded the RAM once, up to 2 GB of RAM. I'm running Windows XP Professional, and I have not crashed once due to a software error. Any other time I crashed was due to me messing with my computer, and I did something wrong. That same issue can come up with a Mac. For instance, if I mess with Command Prompt, and need to restore some settings, I can do that. But this screw up of my computer was my fault, not the software. Same thing can be applied to Macs. You can be messing with Terminal, when your computer crashes since you did something wrong. Oops. About your sources. I like how you have decided to use the Apple site as your source of argumentation. 1. I see where you get it is safe from viruses, but you are horribly mistaken. It is safe from non Mac viruses, but it is just as vulnerable to Mac viruses. The only reason it is safe from non Mac (which the Apple site incorrectly calls a PC) viruses is because the OS foundation is different. It's like trying to edit an English Paper with Math. Doesn't work. 2. The Apple site is an unreliable source for argumentation. It's like using the Bible to prove that God exists. A source like the Apple site is guaranteed to be biased towards their product. Therefore, your sources are invalid. My sources: . http://www.m-w.com... . http://www.m-w.com... . http://www.microsoft.com...