After dabbling for over a decade with the Cube and PT I think I finally know a sufficient answer to this question. The answer is "neither and both". Bare with me...
If your looking for super fast editing, tracking, automation, pretty much anything in the workspace, cubase is dope for it. I can mix and cleanup a song in Cubase a hundred times faster than I can in PT. you should see the look on my clients faces when they see im using Cubase 6 (not pro tools) and im able to tightly mix their songs as they record them, effects and all. They are able to walk out my studio minutes after the last audio is captured with a near finalized mix of their material. Now I know my experience makes that possible but alot comes from steinberg focusing on making quality software thats very user friendly.
That sounds like a personal workflow orientation to me and has nothing to do with the software.
Now if you are looking for a program with a high resolution sound engine, pristine cpu power in your plugintry(yes i made that up), and mapping and bussing that will literally make you verbally abuse your setup repeatedly then PT is for you. Its a reason why its called PRO Tools and not Poor Tools. Its idealogy to be used with gear. If youve got an icon or SSL, hell even a AWS 94 or any analog board of comparison protools will seem easy because your board interfaces and whatever you touch corresponds. Not click bussing or drawing automation. You get all that special power at your finger tips. Evan my tascam integrates with PT very well and allows me more flexibility then using a mouse.
High resolution sound engine? Pristine CPU power? Do you work for Avid? Because all that sounds like marketing hype. Please qualify these claims with facts. The bolded bits are the statements I have issues with.
That being said, identical controller protocols are available on all platforms and you'll find problems and stability across the board. What you have stated above is NOT a worthwhile distinction to make. Automation can be written by controllers in both camps. Additionally, as mentioned, Cubase has a 64-bit engine and Pro Tools is only now catching up to 32-bit floating point. If you want to go on figures alone (which is silly), PT is trumped. Don't waste time worrying about DAW bit precision. It makes very little difference compared to what you captured and how you captured it, i.e. mic, room, placement, player. Additionally, plugins are handled natively in Cubase and Pro Tools HD Native and on Sharc chips in the HDX / TDM systems. Two different beasts. However, yes, processing on external DSP will always help lessen CPU load and increase overall system power but with UAD cards and the like, this is available on both systems. Probably the biggest trump card Pro Tools has in this department is the ability to have very low latency monitoring with plugin processing on input. Many native systems struggle with this although now with the ever increasing CPU power available, the margin is narrowing.
So in conclusion:
Cubase: fast editing, quicker routing, seems more plugin and midi friendly, and easy on the brain.
PT: Industry depth in sound, more power out of your plugins and mix, if you have the new 10 you can maximize headroom with the new 32bit engine. Greatly compatible with interface board.
Like I said, 32-bit FP engines have been around for yonks with other DAWs. Cubase has had it for years and so has Logic so get off that bus because it's done the round trip. Once again, most of what you're talking about above is workflow preference and has nothing to do with the software.
Since i purchased PT 10 when it released I noticed how much more power and detail avid put into the post production/recording features of PT... And then it hit me! Do my recording and editing in cubase using the seamless workspace features, but then mix and master the trax in PT(especially with that new 32bit engine which makes it nearly impossible to clip audio). The epiphany of using both for what they do best has been gold for me literally. Granted its a few more steps to take wether you .OMF out or mixdown to a 32bit stereo track, it gets the job done and ive had no complaints in the past year I have been using this combination... In fact Ive expanded on my business.
Have you been living under a rock? 32-bit FP engines are old news. And why would not being able to clip be an advantage for you? Are you slamming your levels routinely? You know about proper gain staging, right? In any case, the main advantage with 32-bit is not with levels but with processing in the DAW environment. Reverb tails etc have a smoother decay. That's the better way to look at it, imo. If having the capability to slam your levels without clipping blows your hair back, by all means, but it's really not the point.
Dude, this is the real crux of the matter...
Both are good. Both can accomplish the same thing. Both are powerful. The rest is semantics and workflow preference. And remember...
"Professionalism" is not a platform but an attitude and a skill set. Nothing else.
Cheers