The refractor and reflector argument is settled differently depending on what you value, and both answers are correct. This page separates the three things people actually mean when they ask: image quality, value, and how much fuss the instrument is.
Which telescope do I need? Ask us below
Per millimetre of aperture, the refracting telescope wins
A refractor has no central obstruction, so contrast at a given aperture is marginally higher, and a good apochromat gives the cleanest star images available to amateurs. It also holds its alignment permanently because the optics are fixed in a sealed tube. If you compared a 100mm refractor with a 100mm reflector, the refractor would usually win on the moon and planets.
Per pound spent, the reflector, and it is not close
Nobody compares equal apertures, because they do not cost the same. At the price of a 100mm apochromat you can buy a 200mm reflector, which gathers four times the light and resolves twice the detail. On faint objects that gap is decisive, and it is why almost all large amateur aperture is in reflectors.
On fuss, the refractor again
A reflector needs occasional collimation, cools down slowly if it is large, and has an open tube that collects dust. A refractor is grab and go. For an observer whose sessions are twenty minutes on a weeknight, that difference decides more than optics do.
Questions people ask about refractor
Reflector vs refractor telescope: which is better?
A reflector for value and for faint objects, a refractor for convenience and for photographic star quality. For a first telescope for looking, a reflector almost always.
Reflecting vs refracting telescopes: what is the difference?
A refractor bends light through a lens at the front; a reflector bounces it off a mirror at the back. That single difference drives the price, the size and the maintenance of each design.
Do refractors need collimating?
Effectively never. The optics are fixed in a sealed tube at the factory, which is one of the design's real advantages.