Well hopefully the question has been answered by now. Everyone makes their own decision and that's cool. It comes down to what you like. Regardless of anyone else's opinion. RAW in my opinion gives you more tools to work with when and if needed. But that's my opinion. I like having the options RAW gives that jpeg doesn't. Think of it as developing film. If you take a jpeg it's like dropping your film off at Walmart and hoping for the best. If you use RAW your your own developer. It's a matter of how much time or effort one wants to put into processing the photo's if the need comes.

This question comes up frequently so I saved these three images. They are all the same picture. I got out of the car and took a picture of a water fountain. You can see the original image over exposed, then the best I could do to the jpeg with Photoshop, then the final one is when I adjust the RAW file and saved it as a jpeg. You can see that RAW gives you much more ability to make adjustments in post processing. Most photo's I take are jpeg but if there's ever a question on exposure or settings or if the photos will be irreplacable then I always shoot also in RAW so that if I messed something up I'll have a better chance at fixing a mistake if I need to.

It depends on what I am shooting, and what there intended use will be. Just a family gathering, or snap shots, then it's JPG. If I'm doing something I want to get serious about, then RAW. Raw requires a follow up PP. I also find that if your camera is set up properly, then there JPG will work fine. I also find that with all the software out there. I have no problem working a JPG.

If in doubt, go out and shot a few hundred shot in RAW, and then come back and tell use your feeling. I don't see that much advantage in RAW and handling a file size thats almost twice the size of what a JPG would be. Just my two Cents.