Plasma is better overall for TV watching than LCD

I'd also say that although my opponent is happy to try and debate the advantages of LCD, he has not made any arguments against the advantages of Plasma providing a superiour picture through things such as better contrast, better and more accurate colours, and better blacks. "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. " I'm simply trying to disprove a point that you raised, however you now say it's irrelevant. So in that case I'd assume that there is no such thing as the EXACT angle needed from plasma as you said, and at any angle Plasma will have the superior picture on that basis. "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. " Simply put, this is completely false. You're acting as though you cannot watch Plasma with any source of light in the room as if it's a projector. If you can watch a normal CRT in the room, you can watch a plasma fine. "The life of a TV is completely relevant" I agree if we were talking about 5, maybe 10 years, but lets face it, people usually upgrade their TV before it get's the 34 years old, and even if it will breakdown you'll find a much higher chance of the electronics going rather than anything wrong with the panel. "Show sources please. I've already shown some that disprove your point, so until you can bring up a counter-source the contention stands. " [1] [2] [3] "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. " This highlights your misunderstanding of how the technology works. It's not a continuous build-up of a series of small 1 hour stoppages over a year, it's a continuous long exposure in a single setting, in reality it's not going to happen. "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. " If someone doesn't want to risk breaking their LCD they have to get it set up and installed as well, I don't really see your point and I don't accept the premise that even if it was 5kg more suddenly it's going to cost you a lot more money. They use exactly the same brackets. "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. " The premise of the debate was that the family was after a large screen TV, let's leave it at that. "I believe your math is incorrect. " Than say why, or illustrate with your own maths. I've clearly laid out mine, until you can show otherwise the math is correct. "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. " I'm not sure what this is meant to mean. Plasma is cheaper to buy by a large margin, and I never said LCD was more expensive to run. "The sources he uses don't always have to do with what he's said" Which sources have I used that haven't had to do with what I've said? "also show that LCD's are better in some other category" I never said LCD doesn't have it's own advantages. Overall my opponent has been debating the advantages of LCD, but has not in any way addressed Plasma's superior traits. Let me summarise. Plasma - Superior Viewing Angle Superior Contrast Superior Colours More Accurate Colours Better Black Levels Cheaper Cost of Display LCDs- Cheaper running costs (As mentioned, you're saving about 1c an hour, largely irrelevant) Brighter Display (This means in super bright rooms it will look better) Lighter (Simply put this doesn't make any difference at all once in place) Burn-in resistant (This is irrelevant because people don't leave static images on screen for 48 hours straight) Again while my opponent is happy to debate the LCD advantages, he has done nothing for disproving Plasmas. He admits that in certain circumstances Plasma is capable of producing a better picture than LCD does. Let's face it, when you go out to buy a TV, what do you look for? Obviously it's the one with the best picture that you can afford. Plasma is the TV choice that will do this for you. One of the reasons LCD became more popular is because of the amount of myths surrounding plasma, some which we've seen in this thread. For instance burn-in, massive running costs, and life of display. When you hear the truth about these things, i. e. you have to leave something on for 48 hours straight, it's costing a penny more, and the life is exactly the same, people realise how irrelevant these 'advantages' are. About the only valid point my opponent keeps bringing up is light. In super bright rooms LCD will look better. In a super dark room Plasma will look better. What my opponent is trying to do is twist the premise of the debate that it's an average room into saying that everyone naturally has super bright rooms. The reason it was put in the opening stipulation was to stop hypothetical situations like we're seeing, where he argues it's in a super bright room which obviously favours LCD, and I argue it's in a super dark room and they only watch at night, which favours Plasma. Average being you get the normal amount of light that doesn't give a huge advantage to one or the other. It's up to the audience to decide if by average we mean the normal everyday amount of light that most people have. In this situation nether display is in it's ideal element, however any attempts to make the plasma look as though it will be completely washed out and horrible is false. I'll say this again clearly. If you have watched a CRT TV in your home (which I'm sure all of us have) it's exactly the same as what a Plasma would look like in the same lighting conditions. I think we can agree your CRT TV wasn't horribly washed out now can't we. My opponent can't rebut the point that Plasma is the cheaper technology to buy, dollar for dollar when you're looking at screen size. You can see this buy walking into any electronics store near you. For this bargain you're getting a superior picture, better contrast, and better black levels. What you have to ask yourself is this. Does the advantages of LCD, being things such as running costs, negate the picture quality advantage, and the fact it's much cheaper, advantage of Plasma. I contest in no way does it. As a result I say for most normal people, in an normal room, Plasma is the way to go. I thank my opponent for the debate. [1] - . http://www.samsung.com... [2] - . http://au.lge.com... # [3] - . http://panasonic.com.au...