So, I'm about to do something I've very -
very- rarely done before.
I'm going to agree with this argument.
Fact is, up to about mid-late diamond level, things are relatively simple, things are generally balanced. Either the person who cheeses successfully wins or the guy who has better macro by the 15-17 minute mark wins (at late diamond).
Problem is, when you get any better, things become rather more refined. The scope for allowing for error when it comes to 'approximating' balance becomes a lot finer. For example, it is
entirely valid to say that on certain maps, if terran wants to beat a protoss they have to stop them from getting a tier 3 army with a 170-200 supply count off of 3-4 bases. They must apply constant pressure.
My best race has been protoss since beta, since it's the race i started playing with and just stuck with for a while before branching out. From both sides of the equation, and even after all of the various nerfs to protoss and terran units over time since beta, I can say for absolute certainty that
it is a lot harder for terran to harass than it is for protoss to defend. Reasonable protoss players will happily complain about, for example, mutalisks and the trouble of defending 3-4 bases on certain maps, and that therefore being the motivation for sticking to 2 base aggression, possibly expanding behind it if the win is not guaranteed. However, in PvT dealing with most harassment isnt much of a problem, since chargelots and stalkers, not to mention feedback from high templar when well positioned can happily clean up most to all drops from terran. The only way they can do damage is when protoss is caught out of position (i.e. when they are playing
badly).
In an actual full on army engagement, a lot is made of EMP. I personally agreed that EMP had too large a radius, this is absolutely true. However, the effort made for terran to win any tier 2 to tier 3 engagement is massive in terms of APM cost, microing marines and marauders stuttering across the area to escape AOE attacks and then to minimise damage vs chargelots. To continue macro (possibly 30-35 keyboard keystrokes for a standard production cycle assuming you're not trying to expand at the same time) while microing 2-3 groups of MM taking on chargelots and forcefields (not to mention storms and colossi at tier 3) is a massive effort compared to the requirement of protoss to establish an initial arc and throw down the appropriate forcefields, cast feedback and storms (yes, this is a fast and important part of protoss skill, not to be looked down upon) is very transient and requires much less focus in terms of time than terran's micro.
What this means is that yes terran has a far greater scope for attack. They can split their army via medivacs to attack multiple locations, they can sacrifice (let's be honest) ghosts to weaken the protoss army before a huge engagement and if they can catch you out of position with vikings, annihilate the entire army and push forward for a near unstoppable victory. But to actually achieve this requires either protoss to be entirely terrible, or for terran to have such a high level of focus and indeed apm count (korean as i believe kamwah said) that they can actually pull off that level of multitasking effectively and with the appropriate micro.
Frankly on that side of things any zerg who thinks their race needs 'a high level of micro' has no idea what they're talking about
I'm not sure that TvP is imbalanced, but I definitely think that at a masters level you need to display a certain level of speed and focus that protoss players don't necessarily need in the mid-late game.
