Plasma is better overall for TV watching than LCD

< > I refuted the reliability of your sources to the points that you were making, not the actual sources themselves (except #2). < > But I thought, as you said yourself, we were talking about the "average" customer. The average customer isn't going to watch TV at a 160-178 degree angle so this point is null on the factor of what TV is better. < > We're, once again, talking about the "average" LCD or Plasma TV. On "average", LCD's do better with light, as you concede here in this paragraph. It doesn't have to be a massive amount of light, but one large window or a couple small windows can completely ruin a Plasma TV's viewing capabilities at the time of day the light shines through. With LCD's, this is not the case. < > The "average" room usually has a decent amount of light. "If you windows in your room or light on in your room, the glossy glass front surface of a plasma screen will produce mirror-like reflections that compete with the image being displayed. For birght scenes with a lot of colors, it is distracting. For dark scenes with not so much contrast, it makes a plasma unwatchable. " (. http://www.carltonbale.com...) < > It's not incorrect. I have shown with my sources that it is completely correct. Nowhere does it say the "average" Plasma can survive for 100,000 hours. The life of a TV is completely relevant because if your TV dies or reaches "Half-brightness", you pretty much have to get a new one. If it doesn't and is just old, you can keep it for a long time. < > Show sources please. I've already shown some that disprove your point, so until you can bring up a counter-source the contention stands. < > When kids play video games, it is a pretty often occurence (I would know because I am one) that we'll leave on the start screen or the video mode screen for an hour or so while we do something else. Then we'll come back and play. Over the time-span of about a year, this will ruin the screen. < > It's more than an extra 1 kg and it can matter. If someone isn't strong enough or doesn't want to risk breaking there new plasma they'll have to pay extra to have it set up and installed. < > Average families don't have a bunch of 52" TV's. The average families have TV's in the 30"-40" range. On my previous links it even says that Plasma screens are rare below 42" and the LCD's have a significant advantage with this size range. <>j I believe your math is incorrect. Saving about about 5c a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, saves about $100 a year. This is quite the significant amount if you ask me and this adds up over the 10-20 years you'll probably have your TV to a couple thousand dollars. < > That's only on the larger size TV's as my sources have already shown. For the "average" consumer, the LCD is cheaper in those sizes. My opponent bases his information off of personal experience but gives no realiable sources to back him up. The sources he uses don't always have to do with what he's said, are biased, or also show that LCD's are better in some other category. Well, I think I've refuted AND made my own points clear with the above writings. I look forward to my opponent's next response. :)