Plasma is better overall for TV watching than LCD

I'm going to explain firstly how plasma on average has a better picture than LCD, and also how my opponents valid points too the advantages of LCD technology are rather irrelevant to most buying decisions. "I'm talking from personal experience. At my uncle's house I have a hard time seeing his plasma from a distance, but not with the LCD I have at home. " From personal experience I sell these screens, and look at them 8 - 12 hours a day for the last 5 years, side by side. I think we're going to have to agree that distance makes no noticeable difference between the technologies, unless you can provide any technical evidence for the difference. "I refute the reliability of my opponent's sources in this case. " No problems, that's fine, however you then go on and use two of the same sources I did to try and prove your own points! I'll call it even and only use the two sources you seem comfortable to, each which supports my position. Webopedia states (paraphrasing) that LCD's are standard up to 160 degrees, however can go up to 175, while plasma can go up to 178 degree's and "Off-angle viewing is excellent and better than LCD". [1] Buzzle also states that "Plasma TVs are also slightly better when it comes to viewing angle". [2] Going off sources my own opponent is happy to use, I ask him to concede that Plasma has better viewing angles than LCD. "Plasma TV's don't have the anti-glare technology the LCD's do" The main advantage of an LCD in light is their matt screen vs the Plasma glass. The matt screens on and LCD varies from model to model though. There are even some plasma's out there which are coming in a matt finish, and there are LCD's which have a shiny glossy screen similar to a plasma's glass. The Plasma glass is exactly the same as an old CRT tube TV. Now people never used to say you can't watch these during the day, the same applies to plasma TV's. The only time you will get glare off them is if you have a bright source of light directly behind you. LCD's will still reflect this light, however it will be slightly less noticeable. You most definitely do not need a "closed off room" or no window's at all. Simply put unless you have massive floor to ceiling window's encircling the room, you'll be fine. An "average" room will look great for Plasma. "Actually I said that in perfect conditions for a Plasma TV, not average, Plasma has better picture quality, but "average" is not perfect". We'll we've discussed viewing angles, plasma is superior so clearly anything that's "average" is better than LCD and would be "perfect" for a plasma. Distance we've discussed and again there is no difference between Plasma and LCD, so it must be "perfect" for a plasma. Thirdly light we've discussed and unless you've got an extremely bright room, which most people simply have an average lit room, Plasma would be fine as well. Rebuttal of my opponents points. "LCD's have a longer screen life than plasma tv's. " Firstly, this is both incorrect, and largely irrelevant, I'll go on to show why. Every current plasma is showing at least 60,000 hours half life, and some such as Panasonic are now quoting 100,000 hours before the screen gets to half its original brightness. [3] If you look at that 100,000 hour figure supposedly Plasma would have a longer life than LCD. On the whole though it's largely irrelevant. Let's say you watch TV 8 hours a day, every single day, never missing one. (Perhaps you watch 12 hours 1 day but only 4 hours next, same thing). If you did that, it would take 20 years (or 34 if you wish to use 100,000) to reach the 60,000 hour half life. This also isn't when your plasma stops working, simply it's half the brightness, LCD's suffer from a similar problem with their back light. Hate to say it but the electronics' in your TV will go long before the half life or back light become an issue. "LCD's have a higher picture resolution while watching HD" Incorrect, the vast majority of both displays now are capable of showing identical resolutions, 1920 x 1080 pixels, or what is known as "Full HD". Therefore resolution, watching HD or not, is identical. "LCD's are better for video games because of plasma TV's tendency to (and this can happen with TV shows as well) to have screen burn in and ruin the TV. " LCD's can suffer this problem as well, however I freely admit that Plasma is the more susceptable technology. Again let's get back to the real world though. You can leave a static image on a plasma screen for 48 hours straight and still not damage the screen, and this was back in 2005. When was the last time you left a completely still image up on the screen, without taking it off or changing a channel, for 3 days straight? In the real world it's a non-issue. [4] "LCD's are much lighter and thinner than plasma TV's allowing easier movement of the TV and mounting it on the wall. " Let's face it, this simply does not make a difference. Unless you're sitting there physically holding a TV up you in most cases use an identical bracket for either. An extra 1kg hanging on your wall will never be as important as the picture quality you're looking at on the screen. "The lowest sizes of plasma screen TV's that are commonly placed in the market are 42" which is larger than the "average" consumer is wanting to buy. " Having extensive experience in this I can tell you this is false. Selling them all day every day I assure you the average screen size probably fits in at around 42". There are certainly many people who want a bigger screen, 46" or 50", however then to be fair there are also a few who need the smaller 32". Saying that, the premise of this debate was that this is for a normal "mum & dad" consumer who is after a big TV. "LCD's consume 30-40% less power than plasma TV's do. " Again let's look at how relevant this type of thing is in the real world. I'll work it in AUD because that's where I live, then convert it to USD at the end. Let's say that a Plasma uses 350w of power an hour. We'll say (although I could debate this issue also, because it varies so much from model to model) that LCD uses 30% less power. This means an LCD uses 245w. A kw of electricity here in Australia costs 13c. So that means a Plasma is costing 4.55c an hour to run, and a LCD is costing 3.19c an hour to run. We're talking of a difference of 1.36c an hour here (0.89c USD, not even a penny! ). If your worried about money then over a year this will cost you (watching 8 hours a day, every single day) about $39 a year more to run a plasma TV. ($25 USD) Now, if again money is a problem you must consider that Plasma is much cheaper than a comparable LCD, so you could be talking $1000 through to $1500 saving right there, so on average it's taking you a good 30 years to make your money back. Let's face it, when your looking at a TV that you're happy to shell out 1, 2, 3 maybe even 4 thousand dollars for, I doubt someone won't pay an extra 1c an hour to get the picture they prefer. My opponent has summed up the key philosophy difference between LCD and Plasma. LCD's benefits feature around the technology itself, lower running costs, lighter, can work at high altitudes etc however on the whole this should be and is largely irrelevant (again 1c an hour for the picture you want). Plasma on the other hand have great benefits for the quality of the picture itself, great colours which are accurate, great blacks, great contrast. Because Plasma will give you a better picture, and LCD's advantages are largely irrelevant, I maintain Plasmas is a better TV overall for the average consumer. [1] . http://www.webopedia.com... [2] . http://www.buzzle.com... [3] . http://www.pioneerelectronics.com... [4] . http://panasonic.com.au...