Why is blank better than blank?

[DealsR4theDevil]

Taking everything out of the equation (such as burn-in, cost, lifespan, etc), I am talking pure picture quality only, which do you think produces the better picture, LCD or Plasma?

I have a 42" Pioneer Elite PureVision PRO940HD 720p Plasma that I bought for $2,600, it has been professionally calibrated and I watch my Blu-rays on my PS3 via HDMI cable. My friend, we'll call him Joe for arguments sake, just bought a 42" Sharp Aquos LC42D64U 1080p LCD for $1,400 and my other friend, Bob believes that the Sharp is better than my Pioneer in EVERY way.

Now I will admit that my TV has the lower resolution, but black levels and color tones are much more accurate on my TV, in fact when I bought it I was deciding between it and a 1080p Sony XBR. The black levels bothered me too much on the XBR so I went with the Pioneer Elite 720p (I couldn't afford the Pioneer Elite 1080p).

Now I have seen my friends TV playing the same Blu-rays through a PS3 and there is no comparison in black levels or color tones. In my opinion, mine is clearly better in that department (agian, I know he has the higher resolution). But Bob highly disagrees, in fact, Bob believes his 720p Vizio is better than my TV because "Plasmas suck."

I am tired of arguing with him, so I turn to the good people here at Blu-ray.com to prove me wrong or help my argument.

LCD or Plasma! Which do you think produces the better picture and why?

PS: if my TV is truly inferior to the Sharp Aquos (which I disagree with), then it is ludicrous that mine retails for $1,000 more.