And thus the discussion devolves into a pissing contest over whose programming language is the most object oriented...
Look, one can reasonable agree to disagree on the definition of 'object-oriented', but I don't see how you can seriously state that C++ is not object-oriented. According to the most broadly accepted superset of what constitutes 'object-oriented', C++ is object-oriented (or rather, can be used in such a way).
Neither is object-oriented, except C++ allows you to easily work with objects unlike C, where you have to reinvent them.
It is easy for me not to pick C if I need more abstraction than a struct with pointers to functions can provide.