What do you consider anti-XBox 360 arguments. The 360 not being build well? The 360 not being as powerful as the PS3?
Well I'm sorry IMO without the hardware issues the 360 is a proper console, but not as powerful or forward thinking as a PS3.
You see, there are three things here.
(1) The Xbox 360 and poor build quality. Few people would dispute this, and getting it on tape and forcing MS to pay attention is a good thing. I think this lawsuit is a good thing.
(2) Your belief that the PS3 is more powerful. Part of the problem is that it isn't that clear cut -- the PS3's GPU is much less powerful than the 360s measured by fill rate. The PS3's CPU (the Cell) is much less powerful than the 360's CPU (the Xenon) when measured by integer performance. The PS3's CPU is more powerful when measured by floating point performance. But they're both very slow (the Xenon and the Cell) in todays terms.
(3) The concept of forward thinking. By all business measures, the PS3 is not only not forward thinking but it is a failure as a product. It has already cost Sony more money then it could ever possibly make.
Look, we both know the 360 and PS3 aren't considered powerful any more. And we both see that even PS3-first targetted development is often lower resolution than the 360 (GTA 4 is an example) because of a very weak GPU in the PS3 and that the same title used to suffer from popup in the 360 because MS didn't allow disk based installs. These are things we can both accept.
And we can both accept that the Xenon and Cell are no longer anything special, if they ever were, because of how weak they are compared to modern processors.
You aren't a troll because you post negative news. It is news, after all. You are a troll because you refuse to confront reality and keep insisting that some magical titles will come out for the PS3 to prove its superiority. Overall, the 360 still has a better library.