The problem with this poster's arguement is just that: it isn't an aguement. To examine this proposition, let us first take a look the the pivotal word it this debate and define it. That word is better, which is the comparative form of the word good. the term good has so many meanings, and can be examined so many ways, that this debate holds no educational value unless we assume that the resolution actually means "That MacOS should be used as opposed to Linux" This proposition actually holds ground in debate theory and is not so incredibly abusive and open to all assortments of kritiks and squarrely cases as the original statements was. For example, I could write an arguement on how Mac is more evil than Linux. That is, unless we are to argue rather or not Linux is evil, which would be a waste of time seeing as it is an operating system and the only way that it could be evil would be if it were used for evil. Clearly, swords are not evil: just the man who uses them to kill the innocent. Because the resolution is abusivly broad, it holds no educational value. Furthermore, comprehensive definitions of good are not applicable to operating systems because they are nadament objects. In conclusion, whoever wrote this proposition needs to go find out what debate is, versus wasting their time claiming that they are a Mac user and a member of the 'geek herd.' Last time this debater checked, this herd was limited to those who were smart enough to analyze and comprehend basic problems such as using the word 'good' to discuss an inadament object in a formal environment. If the drafter were to write a proper propostion or policy, I would be more than obliged to thoroughly deny the affirmative position.