Misha has covered just about all the important points, I dont think that one is better that the other, they both have their pros and cons. Digital is in my opinion defiantly better for convenience and cutting down work flow. Film can still offer better large images at the high end and has a better tonal range. For the sake of your particular argument it might be wise to outline the pros and cons of each medium rather than trying to say which one is better. I know two professionals both of which use film for their published work and one of which uses digital for work that doesnt require printing over 15" x 10" One uses 35mm film and a digital SLR and the other uses medium and large format only. Just recently I was involved in a discussion forum with guest speakers that are active international professional photographers, talking about film/digital and the traditional/digital darkroom. Neither speaker would commit that one medium was better than the other. But both were in agreement that the digital darkroom (namely Photoshop) was far more versatile than the traditional darkroom in the sense that in Photoshop it is possible to do things that are just not possible in the traditional darkroom. It was suggested that it was possible to do anything in the traditional darkroom that can be done in Photoshop, both said that was not so. Traditional printing methods last longer than anything currently available in inkjet printing. Film negatives can last over 100 years whilst digital files have a projected lifespan of 5 - 10 years!? (Info from a major technology source)

The Truth is Out There