It's not so much a pissing contest as it is attempting to get facts straight. Nigel stated that PICs are easier to learn and better supported, both statements which are absolutely false. Bigger market share does not mean better supported, nor does a larger number of web pages with PIC content vs AVR as there is still more information out there for BOTH lines than anyone could possibly read. PICs and AVRs are both approximatly equal in how difficult they are to learn and there are fully developed free IDEs for both I believe, though I'm not familiar with the free software available for PICs, you can chose ASM, Basic, or C for both PIC and AVR.
Also 3V0 you can not say that the 4-1 clock rate is not a drawback. EVERY AVR even the lowest dirt cheap 30 cent tiny11 (though they're hard to find glad I stocked up) runs at 1 MIPS per MHZ. Only higher end later model PICS have PLLS, and even then you still need 4X the clock speed, which means to equal the raw processing ability of an AVR running at 20Mhz you'd have to have a PIC With a PLL that will run at 80MHZ, and you can get 20Mhz AVRs for dollars, that is a HUGE bonus for hobbyists.
Are there PICS that cost a dollar that run at 80mhz?
Though PICS having bigger market penetration can't be overlooked entirley if you intend on doing this professionally, as PICs are so pervasive you have no choice but to learn them. For a hobbyist or experimentor the practical choice is 100% in AVRs favor for price/performance. For people involved in industry though learning PICs is a requirement.