The PS3 is better than the Xbox 360.

Before I get in onto any of the details, I would like to point out one thing to my opponent.Take a look at this website. http://www.hardcoreware.net...When was this article published? Thats right. 2007. What year is it right now? Thats right. 2013. How outdated is that article? SIX YEARS. Look at up to date articles on this topic, before handing me with all this outdated info.Now, I will move on to my rebuttals.Rebuttal 1:Lets take a look at what you said before. You said that Xbox controllers last longer than PS3 controllers, which is completely false. I have had a PS3 since 2007. I only have had two controllers - EVER, and they work PERFECTLY fine with NO JAMS at all. No whatever you said about this topic is now null. And I am pretty sure, you have to buy the Xbox controller charger.Rebuttal 2: I previously stated this is my argument."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."This is your rebuttal."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." Let me clarify a few things. SONY REALISED THEIR SECURITY WAS BREACHED ON THE FIRST DAY. And this is why they worked 24/7 to try and STOP them.Secondly, you state this. "This has never happened to XBox LIVE", after I ALREADY stated this: "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." This makes your argument completely null and void. Now I will talk about your arguments."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." Let me point something out to you. Secondly, you state this. "This has never happened to XBox LIVE", after I ALREADY stated this: "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." This makes your argument completely null and void. Now I will talk about your arguments."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." Let me point something out to you Secondly, you state this. "This has never happened to XBox LIVE", after I ALREADY stated this: "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." This makes your argument completely null and void. Now I will talk about your arguments."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." Let me point something out to you. "LIVE is encrypted whereas PSN was simply coded." This is completely false, and I would like to ask you where you got this information.Secondly, you say this. "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." This breach happened a few yearss ago. Since then, nothing like this has ever happened, and PSN's security is actually STRONGER than Xbox LIVE's.Rebuttal 3:"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." Take a look at these websites. http://www.amazon.com... this http://www.amazon.com...;Look at the price difference. See how Playstation move is actually CHEAPER than Kinect?And you also stated this, "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!"Let me tell you something. Half the games on Playstation move do not require you to hold the controller. When you buy the console, it comes with a strap, and you strap the controller to your body. Also, I would like to point out the Kinect is a lot harder to control and actually play games, considering "You are the controller". It is a lot easier with the PS3, where there is actually a controller. And PlayStation Move games are much more interesting and easier to use the Kinect games.Rebuttal 4:Graphics. Please point out to me where you saw that the Xenox GPU is superiour to RSX?Another thing, which I would like to point out to you. The PlayStation 4 is coming out, and I you watched the Sony conference at https://us.playstation.com... then you will realize that ithe PlayStation graphics and specs are superiour to the Xbox's, and that until the Xbox 720 comes out, there is nothing other to compete with Sony. That is my argument, and I look forward to the next round.