The Instigator
MadSammyboy
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
knm131
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points

The Mac/PC conversation: PCs are better than Macs

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2010 Category: Technology
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,046 times Debate No: 11856
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (5)

 

MadSammyboy

Pro

INITIAL CLARIFICATION OF TERMS:

By 'PC', what I mean is a computer that is set up to run a Windows OS as its primary OS, with hardware that is made by a manufacturer or manufacturers other than Apple.

By 'Mac', what I mean is a computer manufactured by Apple, intended to run Mac OS X as its primary OS.

ROUND 1 COMMENTS:

This is obviously well-trodden terrain, and the truth is that it's a topic that doesn't have an altogether right answer. Some people simply prefer the Mac OS interface, and prefer its software offerings to PC-compatible alternatives. I have no problem with that. I'm looking for a debate from someone who holds the strong position that Macs are the de facto superior option in personal computing. It is to these people that I am willing to assume the position that the PC is the better experience.

I wish to offer three points in support on my position. They are versatility, user-maintainability, and accessibility.

Versatility: it's an irrefutable fact that there are orders of magnitude more options for the PC user, in available software, hardware options, and accessories. While some Mac advocates may respond by claiming that Mac-only products are better than their PC equivalents (the 'quality over quantity' argument), this is neither demonstrably true, nor relevant to my position. The claim that Apple and its partners offer 'better' products is entirely a subjective value-judgment; the claim that Microsoft and its partners offer MORE products is a demonstrable fact. The real lynchpin for this point is for us to determine whether Mac-specific products can do tasks or perform functions that are impossible on the PC side. To my knowledge, there isn't anything one can do on a Mac that one CAN'T do on a PC, and the difference in many cases is that a multitude of options exist on the PC side for many major tasks and objectives (in most cases, more than on the Mac side). The hardware issue is similar: there are so many options for the PC consumer, that literally anyone can become a computer-user. One can build their own machine; buy an inexpensive netbook for uncomplicated tasks; buy a top-of-the-line machine for high-end workflows; buy a tablet-enabled PC to replace traditional tools for certain workflows; customize the hardware in a PC to almost infinite lengths; this level of versatility simply isn't as readily available to the potential Mac-buyer.

User-maintainability: By this, I mean that the PC is a machine that not only invites its user to become an expert in its usage and maintenance, but it almost demands such. On the surface, this point seems to actually weaken my position, since one of the selling-points of a Mac is that it supposedly 'just works' (a myth that I will hopefully be privileged to dispel in the course of this debate). My argument here, however, is that because a computer is both indispensable in the modern world, and a precision machine with many, many variables, the user SHOULD become, at the very least, a lay-level expert in at least its basic maintenance and intricacy. While it's beyond the scope of these opening remarks to belabor this point, I will present the analogy of an automobile. An auto has at least two things in common with a computer: it is indispensable in the modern world, and it is a precision machine with many variables and intricacies. It is the height of folly to assume ownership of an automobile with no intention of being able to maintain or diagnose it. No man-made device EVER 'just works' all the time- they are all the handiwork of imperfect minds and hands, and they all have problems of some kind, at some point. At the very least, an auto-owner should be able to fill his own gas tank, check her auto's fluids and air-pressure levels, and be able to perform basic tasks like changing oil, changing tires, replacing light bulbs, etc. A computer brings with it the same responsibility. While you're free to buy one and never learn how to maintain it, it is unwise and irresponsible to do so. It is harder for a Mac user to achieve this degree of maintainability and mastery, for at least two reasons: Macs aren't engineered to be end-user-maintained, and Apple places a number of limitations on what its consumers are legally allowed to do with the products they supposedly own.

Accessibility: This is a continuation of the last point. Precisely because so many people use PCs and because there are so many options and opportunities for people to learn to maintain and master them without troubling themselves, PCs offer the most accessible 'world', perhaps in all of modern technology. If you get a job that requires computer knowledge, odds are that you already have some basic skills to offer, because your new employer probably uses PCs. Chances are, you know someone who can fix most any problem you might have with your PC. If you don't, there are an almost infinite number of resources available to you, from websites and forums, to books and publications. This extends beyond simply maintaining the machine as well. If you want to become an expert in some particular workflow or task or discipline, it's easy to do. The Mac 'world' is far less accessible, simply because it's the minority 'world'. It's something of a 'closed' community, and learning to be 'in the know' requires one to 'check out' of the PC side. While this, in itself, is neither a good nor bad thing, it is challenging and impractical for many consumers, and there's no guarantee that those who choose to adapt will have their needs met. Don't mistake elitism for supremacy.

Of course, there are other points that can be made, and other arguments that can be advanced, but I think this is a sufficient opening for this debate, and I hope to see someone accept the challenge!
knm131

Con

This is my first debate here, and I'd like to thank my opponent for creating what I think is a very interesting topic of debate. I'd like to preface my counter-argument by saying that I own both Windows-based and Mac-based PCs and can see benefits on either side. Even still, I found I did not agree with the points laid out by my opponent in the attempt to argue that the Windows-based PC experience is "better".

Additionally, my argument will assume that my opponent's reference to "PCs" is actually a reference to "Windows-based PCs" since a Mac-based computer itself is a personal computer (PC).

Versatility: My opponent is correct in his assertion that the claim that Apple offers "better" products is entirely subjective, and that Microsoft and its partners offer more products is a demonstrable fact. However, it is also a subjective value-judgment to assume that having more options results in a "better" experience. My contention on the point of versatility necessitating a better experience is that it simply isn't always true. For instance, McDonald's offers a greater number of menu options than the The Dining Room restaurant at the Ritz Carlton in San Francisco. Where are you more likely to have the better culinary experience? There are dot matrix printers that offer USB and parallel interfaces, and then there are photo and/or laser printers that offer only USB. It is a demonstrable fact then, that I can connect more devices to the dot matrix printer than the color/laser printer but that doesn't mean the printing experience will be "better" for me.

Furthermore, the assertion that there isn't anything one can do on a Mac that one CANNOT do on a Windows-based PC is incorrect. For instance, I cannot run Mac-OS based software such as iPhoto or Front Row, without installing additional software, on a Windows-based PC.

Finally, addressing the hardware issue, once again having a greater number of options doesn't require then that the experience will be better. Also, one can build their own Mac-based machine and netbooks can be Mac-OS based as well (http://gizmodo.com...) if one is so inclined. Top of the line machines are available with Mac-OS installed, unless one does not consider this $27,000+ system high-end (http://www.laatedaa.com...).

To summarize on the point of versatility, I will grant my opponent that there are more options, I just do not see how my opponent has proven that having a greater number of options necessitates that the experience you have with your PC is then automatically better because of it.

User-Maintainability: My opponent utilizes the analogy of a car. He states that a car owner "...should be able to fill his own gas tank, check her auto's fluids and air pressure levels, and be able to perform basic tasks like changing oil, changing tires, replacing light bulbs, etc." I wouldn't disagree with this assertion that it's a good idea to know how to do all of these things. I'd also agree that no man-made device just works all of the time. What I would disagree with, is my opponent's claim that a device that requires greater user maintenance then definitively provides its owner with a "better experience". In fact, I'd argue the opposite. When a person makes a purchase decision about a product, they are doing so with the intention of completing some task. For a car, a pretty acceptable reason is to get from point A to point B. For a computer, it is to accomplish tasks such as email, surfing the web, watching movies, or possibly debating on Debate.org. If I never had to maintain my device, then it would provide me with a greater ability to satisfy the goals of my original purchase decision. The more I have to maintain it, the less time it gives me to use it for what it was intended for. So while I agree it is a good thing to be able to know how to maintain my computer, or car, I'm going to have a better experience when I have to maintain it less often. A car or computer that requires maintenance once every 10 years, will be far more desirable to me as a consumer than a car or computer that requires maintenance daily.

Accessibility: I think both my opponent and I would both agree that there are more PCs than Macs and this is fairly evident in most places of businesses as well as homes. But this doesn't necessitate then, that the experience their respective users have is better. Is the experience I'm going to have driving a Honda Civic then, be better than the experience I'd have driving a Maserati or Aston Martin? Jack in the Box serves more customers every single day, than the restaurants of the Ritz Carlton hotel. Which offers the better dining experience? An Aston Martin may be less accessible to me, and you, and many, many others, but that doesn't mean sitting behind the wheel of an Aston Martin makes me long for a Civic. What accessibility really speaks to, in my opinion, is that it is generally a function of price. There are more Civics on the road than Aston Martins because Civics cost less. I'm not arguing that being less accessible implies a better experience, but simply that greater accessibility doesn't imply a better experience.
With that said, Windows-based PCs are cheaper than Mac-based PCs so it makes sense that in terms of pure volume, there would be a great number of them in consumer's hands. But what happens when you eliminate price as a factor? What happens then? Is there still a greater desire to own Windows-based PCs than Mac-based PCs since after all, Windows-based PCs are more accessible? No. When given $1,000 or more to spend, consumers choose to buy a Mac-based PC 91% of the time (http://www.betanews.com...). It's the same reason that if I were to offer to buy you a car, any car, up to $75,000 in price, you're not going to end up driving home in a new Civic even though there's more of them out there on the road. I won't mistake elitism for supremacy, but don't mistake greater accessibility for an improved experience either.

To summarize -- I own both Windows-based PCs and Mac-based PCs. I use them both. But I do not believe that having a greater number of software and accessories means that when I'm using my Mac, that I'm finding the overall experience less satisfying. Especially, if the software and accessories that are available to my Mac, sufficiently aid me to complete the tasks for which I bought the Mac to begin with. Maintenance is required on both systems in my experience, but less often on the Mac, which for me and many others is a plus. And the fact that there are more Windows-based PCs out there, doesn't really influence the experience I have with my Mac-based PC at all (the same way the large number of Civics on the road, doesn't negatively influence the experience I'd have driving an Aston Martin).

All in all, my opponent's position is that the Windows-based PC offers a better experience than the Mac-based PC. While I think there are some arguments that could support that position, I do not think the points laid out by my opponent sufficiently do so. After all, despite the fact that Windows PCs have more software and accessory options, require more maintenance as pointed out by my opponent, and are more readily available, if you ask owners of both Windows-based PCs and Mac-based PCs it seems that owners of the latter are having the "better" experience ("Apple tops PC Customer Satisfaction Survey" - http://news.cnet.com...).
Debate Round No. 1
MadSammyboy

Pro

Initially,I presented three main points in support of my position: that PCs offer greater versatility-of-options than Macs (re: my initial for working definitions of "PC" and "Mac"),that PCs are easier to maintain than Macs, and that PCs are more ubiquitous in the personal-computing ‘world' than Macs.My opponent (hereafter "Con") has taken issue with aspects of each of these points, so for this round of debate,I wish to point out what I think are some inconsistencies in the reasoning processes he used to contend with my initial points.
Versatility:Con rightly acknowledges the correctness of my claim that the PC market offers a significantly greater selection of options than the Mac market,and even agrees with my position that claiming that one software is better than another is a subjective value judgment. However,he then proceeds to contradict himself by stating that more doesn't always equal better,citing a comparison of restaurants as his analogy:"…McDonald's offers a greater number of menu options than the The Dining Room restaurant at the Ritz Carlton in San Francisco. Where are you more likely to have the better culinary experience?" He's attempting to make a value judgment (about whether McD's or the Ritz offers the better experience) into an absolute position. Perhaps,for some,the assets of the Ritz outweigh those of McD's;but what if, for me,the most important aspect of eating out is price?Or timeliness (how quickly can I get in, get my food, and get out)?Or convenience (how many Ritz's am I likely to find within a three-mile radius of my house?;how easy is it for me to take my kids to the Ritz for a quick meal on the way home from school)?Or, heaven forbid, the food itself (am I not entitled to prefer McD's' Big Mac over the Ritz's pan-fried goose liver)?While it's true that more options may NOT equal better options,it's equally true that more options may WELL equal better options- but the problem is that the minute one starts arguing that the Ritz offers a better experience than McD's,HE IS MAKING A SUBJECTIVE VALUE JUDGMENT,which we have already established is not acceptable.All we're left with on this point is ‘more options' versus ‘fewer options', so in order for Con to win this point, he's going to have to argue that ‘fewer options' is an intrinsically better state-of-affairs than ‘more options'.The point: having more options is nearly ALWAYS preferable to having fewer options.This holds for Con's examples regarding hardware as well.
User-maintainability:This initial point was that it is easier for the PC-user to maintain his machine than it is for the Mac-user, which is an advantage, since responsible computer-ownership entails some degree of maintenance. Con seems to have missed this point: "What I would disagree with, is my opponent's claim that a device that requires greater user maintenance then definitively provides its owner with a ‘better experience'." To be fair, I never claimed that a device requiring greater user maintenance must be a better experience-in fact, I never claimed that PCs require more maintenance than Macs at all (which they don't, as a matter of necessity). What I asserted is that ALL personal computers require some sort of maintenance, just as all cars require some sort of maintenance, and that having more options for maintenance, and a greater availability of tools and resources for maintenance, is preferable to having fewer options and resources. Let me state again that ALL computers require maintenance, and that it is a false assumption that PCs invariably require more maintenance than Macs (this is a function of user proficiency, not intrinsic device properties; cf. http://archive.macfixitforums.com...; http://www.macmend.com...; http://support.apple.com...; etc.). Again, this point will be won or lost on the battlefield of ‘more versus fewer'.
Accessibility: There is a theme at work in the points-of-departure:Con is assuming variations on the ‘quality over quantity' approach, which I addressed in my initial remarks.This shows up again in his response to my remarks on accessibility, as he states: "…my opponent and I would both agree that there are more PCs than Macs and this is fairly evident in most places of businesses as well as homes. But this doesn't necessitate then, that the experience their respective users have is better." I think at this point, it's appropriate for me to explain that, in my view, freedom and options are always good properties, and that any assumption I make about why something is better than something else includes consideration of those properties. Further, I maintain that freedom and choice are universally and objectively good, and that all human beings are inevitably drawn to, desirous of, and defensive of, the potential for freedom. This is perhaps the crux of this argument: in a very real way, Apple is the anti-choice, anti-freedom option in personal computing (of course, this is a hyperbolic and anecdotal way of expressing the idea). When you buy an Apple product, you enter into a legal agreement that restricts your use of the product in lots of ways; part of Apple's business model is that you never will need to open your machine to customize it (the iPhone goes further- You CAN'T customize it, and if you try, you have to ‘break' into it); etc.
Why am I making comments about human freedom and the restrictions of Mac products in comments about the accessibility of PCs? Because Con commits what we might call the ‘Apple fallacy' once again: he states that "An Aston Martin may be less accessible to me, and you, and many, many others, but that doesn't mean sitting behind the wheel of an Aston Martin makes me long for a Civic." This is the problem: his unstated assumption is that the Aston Martin is the de facto better car, and that anyone who doesn't prefer an Aston Martin to a Civic is clearly wrong. This is a bad assumption. I imagine that,if Con earned $35,000 a year,and found himself sitting behind the wheel of a $75,000 Aston Martin,he would find himself longing for a Civic when his first car-loan payment came due. Regarding freedom,not EVERYone would trade their Civic for an Aston-Martin, as difficult as that may be for Aston-Martin's PR department to believe. Con's remarks about restaurants are similarly flawed. I wouldn't want to eat at Jack-In-The-Box every night for the rest of my life, but I wouldn't want to eat at the Ritz-Carlton every night, either. The most important thing is that I be given the freedom to choose where I want to eat every night (and if we're going to exhaust this analogy, I suggest that a Mac is neither Jack-In-The-Box nor the Ritz-Carlton, but something in between, like Chili's; continuing the analogy, I'd rather go back and forth between Jack and the Ritz than be stuck at Chili's for the rest of my dining life). Con toys with a fictional scenario in which "…(he) were to offer to buy (me) a car, any car, up to $75,000 in price…". In this scenario, my choice would be neither a Civic nor an Aston-Martin, but a Hot Wheels toy with the $75,000 stuffed inside, so I could do as I pleased with the money.
This is ultimately a discussion about the freedom of choice, more than it is about whether one device or OS is intrinsically superior to another. In my initial remarks, I established that I believe the better machine is the one the user prefers, and that I only intended to engage debate with someone who holds that Macs are de facto better computers. I don't believe Con has made this point. His remarks have all been variations on this statement, which he uses to close his entry: "that there are more Windows-based PCs out there, doesn't really influence the experience I have with my Mac-based PC at all". That's fine, but he fails to demonstrate why Macs are objectively better than PCs, and since that is the foundation of this debate, and not his preference, he must be viewed as having lost this round of the debate.
knm131

Con

My opponent has created the topic as follows: "The Mac/PC conversation: PCs are better than Macs".

Additionally, in addressing his debate topic, he stated the following: "...I am willing to assume the position that the PC is the better experience."

However, in the second round, he stated that: "While it's true that more options may NOT equal better options,it's equally true that more options may WELL equal better options- but the problem is that the minute one starts arguing that the Ritz offers a better experience than McD's,HE IS MAKING A SUBJECTIVE VALUE JUDGMENT,which we have already established is not acceptable."

If subjective value judgments are not acceptable then unfortunately, the topic of debate, initiated by my esteemed opponent, is also then, unacceptable.

Furthermore, at the end of his counter-argument in round 2 he states the following: "That's fine, but he fails to demonstrate why Macs are objectively better than PCs, and since that is the foundation of this debate, and not his preference, he must be viewed as having lost this round of the debate."

The problem here is that I do not necessarily NEED to demonstrate why Macs are objectively better than PCs. I only need to demonstrate that your statement (and topic of debate herein) which is "The Mac/PC conversation: PCs are better than Macs" isn't absolute. To take his own words ... "he's attempting to make a value judgment into an absolute position." His judgment value being of course, that PCs ARE better than Macs. And just as he argued that one cannot say the Ritz has "better" food than McDonald's, one then, also cannot say that PCs are better than Macs.

In either case, by pointing out that subjective value judgments are unacceptable, he has unfortunately, rendered his own initial claim that "PCs are better than Macs" unacceptable as well. It's not really playing by the same rules if the only subjective value judgments that are allowed are his own.

If value judgments are not permissible, and one cannot definitively PROVE that a Mac is better than a PC or vice versa, then there is no opportunity for debate. With all due respect, my opponent either needs to accept value judgments (aka "opinions") or accept that his own initial argument that he initiated ("PCs are better than Macs") is unacceptable.
Debate Round No. 2
MadSammyboy

Pro

Con recognizes that I will call foul on any attempt to insist on what I perceive to be a subjective value judgment as grounds to make the claim that one is better than the other. He even thinks he sees an opportunity to win the debate by holding me to my own standard, telling me that I can't begin with what appears to be a subjective value judgment, then proceed to dismiss all other value judgments. Con would be correct, except for one thing.
All along, what I've argued for is that the PC is the better experience because it allows the consumer to make decisions about, take responsibility for, and utilize his/her expertise in, his chosen device. My original points about versatility, maintainability, and accessibility, were all oriented toward an unstated assumption, which I only alluded to in the the second round of the debate, perhaps should have articulated more clearly from the outset, and will endeavor to express here: that individual liberty is more important than anything else, whether the subject is computers, cars, cuisine, or anything else (even subjects not beginning with the letter ‘C'). This is not a subjective value judgment, but a self-evident truth about about human nature.
My point is very, very nuanced, but crucially important. Every choice is a decision to limit one's own liberty. The moment I decide, for instance, to dine at the Ritz, I have practically eliminated McDonald's as an option (unless I am a glutton!). The moment I buy a PC, I have eliminated the Mac as an option (unless I intend to buy both, but for the sake of my analogy, we'll assume I don't). However, since buying a computer is one choice among many, the question becomes this: how much liberty toward future decisions does this one choice leave me? My position is that the decision that affords me the most liberty toward future decisions is nearly always the preferable one (eliminating obvious exceptions and dilemmas, such as decisions that have extreme life-altering outcomes). This is perhaps the argument I might have proposed, or at least given in aside, but I see the Mac/PC discussion as an excellent frame for the larger ideological issue, and besides that, all of the points I made in my initial remarks spoke to this, so it isn't as though my opponent came in under the assumption that I was arguing otherwise.
Some may, at this point, recognize the opportunity to invoke the response that since one can buy a Mac and run a Windows OS on it, the whole discussion becomes moot. However, let me disabuse us of that notion by reminding us of two things: that hardware is an important function of the total computer experience, and that financial flexibility is a function of liberty. At www.dell.com and store.apple.com, I configured a Dell notebook, then configured a comparable Apple notebook, and the Apple machine was nearly twice as expensive ($2,668, to $1,519- I can't post my specific configurations because the URLs expire, but configuration is easy on both sites). The Dell machine came installed with Windows 7 Home Premium edition, which means that in order to replicate the Windows experience on the Mac, I'd have to buy a copy of Win7 ($150 retail). Most people simply don't have the luxury of letting their computer-buying experience make a $1200 dollar swing, because such a financial burden severely limits their liberty in other, more vital ways (such as whether they can even afford to eat at McDonald's after buying a $3,000 dollar computer!)
What does this tell us? It tells us that buying an Apple computer limits the buyer in at least four ways: it limits him/her financially, and it limits him/her as regards my original point about versatility, maintainability, and accessibility.
In closing, then, I re-articulate my position as follows: the PC is the superior computing experience because it affords the user more control over his own computing experience, and less restriction in other areas of his life (such as finances and the potential to utilize his computer skills professionally or publicly).
For my opponent to win this debate, he will need to demonstrate that a costlier computer with fewer software options, fewer options for customization and maintenance (since Apple heavily restricts what its customers are legally allowed to do with the computers they supposedly own), and a considerably smaller user-community is superior to a computer that is less expensive (both to purchase and to maintain), offers considerably more software options, comes with almost NO restrictions on what the owner can do to maintain and customize, and the largest user-community of perhaps any technology in the world. He will need to do this without appealing to subjective value-judgments or ‘quality versus quantity' arguments, which are only forms of value-judgment arguments. If he wants to win the ‘meta-debate' (the debate BEHIND the debate, as it were), he will also need to demonstrate why individual liberty is a negative thing, and why it is good to forgo freedom and options when making a buying decision.
I look forward to his response!
knm131

Con

I'd like to reiterate the comment made by my opponent in round 2 where he states: "...the problem is that the minute one starts arguing that the Ritz offers a better experience than McD's,HE IS MAKING A SUBJECTIVE VALUE JUDGMENT,which we have already established is not acceptable."

In the third and final round, my opponent then says: "All along, what I've argued for is that the PC is the better experience because it allows the consumer to make decisions about, take responsibility for, and utilize his/her expertise in, his chosen device." His statement has two fundamental flaws. 1) It is by his own definition, unacceptable. 2) It isn't definitively true.

After all, any product that allows the consumer to make decisions, take responsibility for, and utilize one's expertise in may be cool, but that doesn't definitively then make it better than another product. If a PC is purported to do/have all of those things (and say, a Linux machine isn't), those liberties give me no benefit whatsoever in a scenario where I need a dedicated machine to run a Linux-only software package. In this particular scenario, the Windows PC isn't the better experience and therefore, the Windows PC isn't the unconditional "better" experience. I can see situations where a PC might in fact be the better experience, but that isn't going to be the case in EVERY scenario which is the claim my opponent made with the topic of "PCs are better than Macs". Plus, if $9.10 out of every 10 dollars spent on a computer that costs over $1,000 goes into Apple's wallet and that's up from $8.80 dollars out of 10 earlier in the year, and up from $6.60 dollars out of 10 the year before (http://www.betanews.com...), I'm not sure how one can DEFINITIVELY say that PCs are always better than Macs in every scenario.

If PCs were DEFINITELY providing its owners with a better experience than Macs do, why are 91% of sales on computers over $1,000 going to Apple and not Windows-based systems?

If PCs were DEFINITELY providing its owners with a better experience than Macs do, why are Apple customers more satisfied than their PC brethren? (http://news.cnet.com...)

If PCs were DEFINITELY providing its owners with a better experience than Macs do, how was Apple able to sell 3 million computers worth $4 BILLION in sales? And yes, that's in ONE fiscal quarter.

If PCs were DEFINITELY providing its owners with a better experience than Macs do, how was Apple able to achieve an ALL-TIME high of $258.90 in its stock value just 10 days ago?

Apple dominating the premium market, achieving huge growth in its computer business, hitting top marks in customer satisfaction for its products, none of those things mean that Macs are better than PCs. And having a large number of software options as my opponent pointed out, doesn't mean a PC is automatically better than a Mac either.

I think it is clear that PCs aren't better than Macs, but rather, that they CAN be better than Macs in certain situations and for certain people. Conversely, Macs are better than PCs in certain situations, and for certain people.

In closing, this has certainly been an unusual, albeit interesting and enjoyable debate. My opponent has come out right off the bat by posting the topic "The Mac/PC conversation: PCs are better than Macs." In his opening statement, he also said "...I am willing to assume the position that the PC is the better experience." Then in the third round, he admits: "Con recognizes that I will call foul on any attempt to insist on what I perceive to be a subjective value judgment as grounds to make the claim that one is better than the other."

For the sake of consistency and fairness, he must call foul on his own debate topic. Thusly, the only correct option at this juncture is to vote CON.

I'd like to thank my opponent, as well as everyone who read through our debate for taking the time to read our arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MadSammyboy 7 years ago
MadSammyboy
I actually don't think the debaters should be allowed to vote on their own debates, so I voted the exact same way my opponent did (except for myself instead of for him) to even things out a bit.
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
Macs are basically really big iPods! Macs are for dummies.
Posted by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
But there's no point changing it if you're not going to refer to the ability to build a computer and throw Linux on it rather than buying an OS.
Posted by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
No prob. Though I'm sure it was pretty evident to most people what you meant, I just feel the need to correct that whenever I see it.

So a PC with Linux installed as the primary OS would count under neither definition, for this debate? If I were you, I'd probably take out the requirements for specific operating systems, since all Apple computers are designed to use Mac OS as the primary OS anyway.
Posted by MadSammyboy 7 years ago
MadSammyboy
I've included my definitions in my opening remarks. Thanks, omelet!
Posted by MadSammyboy 7 years ago
MadSammyboy
This is a good point, omelet. We need to define our terms:

By 'PC', what I mean is a computer that is set up to run a Windows OS as its primary OS, with hardware that is made by a manufacturer or manufacturers other than Apple.

By 'Mac', what I mean is a computer manufactured by Apple, intended to run Mac OS X as its primary OS.
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
Omelet, he means Windows. I make that same mistake sometimes.
Posted by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
A Mac is a PC. It just happens to be a PC produced by Apple and sold with the Mac Operating System.
http://www.pcmag.com...
Posted by Me100 7 years ago
Me100
I would gladly accept this argument other than i am personally in favor for the PC...
furthermore i would have to do much research b4 entering ths debate.
Posted by MadSammyboy 7 years ago
MadSammyboy
Duly noted! The debate is now three rounds.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by X_mitchell 6 years ago
X_mitchell
MadSammyboyknm131Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by MadSammyboy 7 years ago
MadSammyboy
MadSammyboyknm131Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by barrybater 7 years ago
barrybater
MadSammyboyknm131Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by knm131 7 years ago
knm131
MadSammyboyknm131Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
MadSammyboyknm131Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15