Oh god, why did a Objective/Subjective argument pop up -.-
Lets settle this here. When you say 'Good', 'Bad', 'Better', 'Worse' you are no longer talking objectively. Full stop.
"The PC has better hardware" is not an objective statement. You have not qualified 'Better'. The PC has more advanced hardware? Sure. Stronger hardware? Sure. Hardware with greater technical capabilities? Sure. 'Better' hardware? Define better.
An example. Murder is not, objectively, a bad thing. It is a thing. That is all that you can objectively say about it; Murder is the act of taking another person's life. It is not objectively bad. Welcome to nihilism. Now, we all understand murder as bad as that is our subjective moral code, and judged by our moral code we can say murder is bad, however that is not an objective statement. The only objective statement that can be made along those lines is 'Murder is considered an evil act by the moral code in question'.
Continuing from this, we can therefore not call either the PC or console objectively better. We can state facts about that, and how a majority might perceive those facts, but there is no objective measure here. A PC has more options for peripherals, a far larger library of games, often cheaper games, more powerful hardware and several exclusive genres, however that does not make it 'Better' objectively. It means, objectively, it has those qualities. Subjectively you can perceive those qualities to be important or unimportant dependant on who is judging. This is, conveniently enough, why you cannot make an objective statement about these sorts of things; because people's opinions of what constitutes 'better' differ, and hence so does what is 'better'.
Now, back to you forum, and the rest of this... debate...