Colleagues would argue, correctly I must accept, that amplifiers, speakers, and the room form a system.
I agree (this is the 20% of a system providing 80% of the benefit IMO). The OP is NOT which is better, passive or active, it is about confusion. As @brianlucey stated one of the benefits of active is cost and convenience, Those are HUGE benefits when you have a budget and limited space. I have about a dozen active speakers in my HT that are all internally biamped with a total of 24 channels of A/B amplification (specs are posted in my profile). I would need a dozen two channel amplifiers or five 5 channel amplifiers to power this system in the same fashion, you are talking $$$$$. Next I would need $$$ of long runs of quality speaker cable and another one or two racks to store the amps. I have already compared the Paradigm Studio (passive) 20, biamped, with the active version. They both sounded great but my preference was the active.
So, to make a "system" of the amp, the speaker, and the room in the most CONVENIENT and COST EFFECTIVE fashion I think we are ALL in agreement here, active speakers PLUS a processor using good DSP is a good strategy.
So, if you want a convenient, cost effective, great sounding system use active speakers. That isn’t confusing at all, right?