Regarding the strawman argument - Here's some context - having a semi-decent PC, in addition a console that can play everything my PC can't, is better than having just a high-end PC. Reasons include;

Larger game library to play (exclusives as outlined above) Can easily game on my TV /sofa (Disclaimer; I have a steam controller, haven't found much use for it bar civilisation). If my PC breaks, I have a console, and vice verca. Choice is nice.

So for OP's budget, I was offering a suggestion to consider. A console which would run battlefield, in addition to their current PC which has pretty decent spec.

If we're pointing out flaws in logic arguments, let's look at your last paragraph.

You contradict yourself a bit with 'there are no benefits...the only benefits are...'. And you haven't appreciated console exclusives. If you don't consider them a benefit, that's your subjective opinion, but they are benefits nonetheless.

Also, there is a contest, and I will admit, as I have done above, that consoles lose that contest to PC. PC is superior. But to say there is 'literally' no contest is literally incorrect.

Let me summarise :

Having a PC is better than having a console. Having a both is better than just a PC.

I don't think you're going to agree with me though as you seem unable to appreciate any view that doesn't tie in with 'PC good, console bad'. How's that for objectivity!?