The Instigator
Peleus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
crackofdawn_Jr
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Plasma is better overall for TV watching than LCD

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2009 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,240 times Debate No: 6867
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Peleus

Pro

My argument is that for people interested in a great all round TV, for normal TV viewing, mixing in things such as Bluray watching, DVD watching, Pay TV etc that Plasma is the better choice than LCD.

This is assuming that the watcher is Mr & Mrs Average. This means that it's an average sized room, with average light levels, with an average budget. They are a normal "Mum & Dad" consumer. They has a wide range of viewing from sports and movies for him, and the comedies and romance movies for her. They are after a nice big screen TV, 42" and above.

I believe plasma is better for a number of reasons. The benefits of plasma technology are based around the picture quality. Better blacks on the screen leads to a wide range of accurate colours on the screen, something that's important at the viewing distances an average distance back.

I also believe that LCDs benefits are largely irrelevant in today's situation, based around power usage and burn-in, which for normal people are usually not very important.

I'll go into more depth responding to the against response.
crackofdawn_Jr

Con

I wish my opponent a good luck on this debate.

<>

However you fail to realize that people aren't often at your so-called "average distance".

My opponent says that plasma is better because of picture quality. This is true if you're looking at EXACTLY the right angle at EXACTLY the right distance with the EXACT amount of light. If all that is true then you're fine. However, this is not true for the "average" consumer.

LCD is better because it has the best overall picture quality. It is not affected by light nearly as much as the plasma, has a good picture quality of its own, can be seen clearly at any angle, and can be seen clearly at any distance.
Debate Round No. 1
Peleus

Pro

Thank you for your response.

"However you fail to realize that people aren't often at your so-called "average distance"."

Actually, I think that's the actual definition of an "average distance", the distance at which the most people are normally sitting. Are you saying that the distance from the screen impacts the ability for either Plasma or LCD to work? This does not change the viewing angle at all which I'll get to in a moment.

My opponent admits that Plasma is a better picture quality, assuming three things.

Firstly, that you have the "EXACT" right distance, secondly that you have the "EXACT" right angle, and finally that you have the "EXACT" amount of light. Assuming this is true then I'll assume my opponent will concede that Plasma is a better TV.

Distance I have already addressed, and I'm interested to see what my opponent will say is the difference between plasma and LCD and different distances. Assuming you have the same sized screen for either, they should from distance perspective be identical. As a result I'd say that the EXACT right distance is the same no matter what technology you go for, and that criteria is met.

Secondly, he talks about viewing angle. Plasma actually do not have issues with viewing angles as he suggests, in fact they can go up to quite a large range. Most people actually believe that Plasma has a better viewing angle than LCD. As a result I'd say this second criteria is met, simply because Plasma is more versatile in relation to angles. [1][2][3][4]. Realistically to be fair for LCD though, I'd say the viewing angles we're talking about are ridiculous to consider watching TV from, i.e. If you want to watch your TV at 179 degrees, get up and move.

Thirdly light. LCD's are typically recommended for bright rooms, Plasma's are recommended for darker rooms. Now because we're talking about an "average" room with "average" light, we'll have to go in between here. Obviously there will be the floor to ceiling glass window room where LCD will cut through the ambient light a little better, and the bat cave where Plasma will shine, so I'll call this one even for both technologies. In the vast majority of situations light will not be the deciding factor for your TV, and it will rarely even come into play. If you're watching a CRT TV where you are thinking of putting your Plasma, it will be fine.

As a result, of the opponents criteria, Distance (no difference), Angle (Plasma superior) and Light (depends either way, but for an average room they are both fine) my opponent concedes that Plasma is better TV. "My opponent says that plasma is better because of picture quality. This is true if".

"LCD is better because it has the best overall picture quality."

In the average conditions we've described above, you've said by your own words that Plasma actually has the superior picture, which is backed up by the technical arguments such as greater contrast ratio and better black levels, and a more accurate colour range. Plasma can also be seen at any (practical) angle, and is just as good at a distance as LCD. Yes in bright rooms LCD can start to improve, where as in dark rooms it will look very washed out, in the "average" day to day situation we described above, with a mix of watching during the day and a few movies at night, neither has a significant edge, hence I'd have to say clearly Plasma is a better overall TV than LCD.

[1] - http://www.webopedia.com...
[2] - http://www.plasma-lcd-facts.co.uk...
[3] - http://www.cnet.com.au...
[4] - http://www.buzzle.com...
crackofdawn_Jr

Con

I thank my opponent for a quick and thorough response.

<>

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.

<>

I refute the reliability of my opponent's sources in this case. The first one has nothing to do with angle why the second one is a biased site made by Panasonic, a plasma TV distributor. The third site mentioned says that plasma TV's USE to have a better viewing angle, but now LCD's have caught up if not surpassed plasma TV's. The fourth site does not mention the viewing angles.

<>

My opponent partially concedes his point. However, to put it bluntly, what he states is wrong. Plasma TV's don't have the anti-glare technology the LCD's do. It doesn't take much light to affect the plasma screens viewing. If you've ever compared a Plasma to an LCD in the store you'll notice that even with just the top light it glares. Saying that light will hardly ever come in to play is entirely incorrect. In the "average" home as my opponent is talking about, people won't have a closed off room with no windows as to not let light in. This means that the "average" viewer will have to deal with glare for the better part of the day. Light is a huge deciding factor and LCD's cope better with it.

<>

Actually I said that in perfect conditions for a Plasma TV, not average, Plasma has better picture quality, but "average" is not perfect.

<>

In a dark room at night the plasma has the advantage. However, the "average" person does not have a dark room and does most of his TV watching during the day. People don't watch a couple movies every night. Maybe once or twice a week. Compare that to the amount of time they spend watching normal television in the day, the LCD is farly superior.

Now for some more points of my own using my opponents own sources and some of my own:

LCD's have a longer screen life than plasma tv's. They generally last 60,000 hours or more while plasma TV's only last 30,000-60,000 hours (http://www.buzzle.com...). Plasma screens also lose their brightness over a long period of time, known as Life to Half Brightness, or LTHB (http://www.webopedia.com...).

LCD's have a higher picture resolution while watching HD.h(ttp://www.buzzle.com...)

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. (http://www.buzzle.com...)

LCD's are much lighter and thinner than plasma TV's allowing easier movement of the TV and mounting it on the wall. (http://www.buzzle.com...)

We've been talking about the "average" consumer, and the "average" consumer isn't looking for a huge 42" or 60" television. The average consumer is looking for something in the 30s. 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. (http://www.buzzle.com...)

LCD's consume 30-40% less power than plasma TV's do. This saves crucial money and power in a time where most of us are heading into a depression and need to save as much money as we can. We're also slowly running out of oil (and although I believe we have plenty of time) the more efficient we use our energy the longer we'll last and the longer we'll have to find an alternative(http://www.webopedia.com...).

Now I know this isn't the "average" consumer, but it still affects the effectivenss of a plasma screen. The problem is that at an elevation above 6,500 feet plasma TV's don't work. (http://www.webopedia.com...)

I await my opponent's response. Good luck. :)
Debate Round No. 2
Peleus

Pro

Thank you to my opponent for his response.

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...
crackofdawn_Jr

Con

I thank my opponent for another very thorough response.

<>

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. :)
Debate Round No. 3
Peleus

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response. 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...
crackofdawn_Jr

Con

I finally have enough time to get on and write my argument but I only have 2 minutes left.

Thank you for a good debate and I'm glad to have debated this with you. :)
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Plasma screens are vacuum tube technology.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by crackofdawn_Jr 8 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
Peleuscrackofdawn_JrTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
Peleuscrackofdawn_JrTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07