Worshipping poltergeists is not that bad of an idea

Wow this is fun. :) Refutation of Con's Refutation: 1. Con states that "all powers should be justified" and "thus only benevolent beings with greater powers should be worshipped". To this I say that you shouldn't make sweeping generalities about not worshipping malevolent powers. For example, if a kitten were caught in a tree, mewing for its rescue, and your only option was to summon a malevolent poltergeist, would Con not do so, and let the kitten be eating by a bird or something? Surely not. The ends justify the means in some cases. This refutation does not hold water. Vote Pro! 2. As to the proof of poltergeists as being benevolent, I made no such claim. I only claimed they were powerful. I only claimed they were powerful. Even then, "proof" only exists in mathematics. There is a body of evidence which is persuasive, however, that poltergeists are powerful. ALL ancient cultures of the world make use of some ritual to favorably dispose the poltergeists to our desires --- wicked or otherwise. Were it not for these ancient cultures like the Polynesians, the Hawaiians, the Dutch, the Swiss, the Egyptians, the Hyper-boreans, etc. we would not have modern civilization. 3. Poltergeists do not only exist in folk lore. There is a wealth of evidence that they exist in America and elsewhere. Electronic Voice Phenomena, ectoplasm, Dan Aykroyd, etc. are all persuasive evidence that poltergeists are real. I refer the Con to Google, Bing or Yahoo to do a search on "proofs of the poltergeists". 4. Poltergeists are disembodied or subtle-bodied spirits. All calltures have these. The ancient Chinese philosopher Mozi, for example, wrote a whole book on it: http://ctext.org... 5. I concede that the poltergeists may whisk us away to a land of Tim Burton-esque nightmares. However, everything good in life --- with the exception of a heck of a lot of things --- comes with risks. I'm sure the Con knows that when you go to the grocery store you could get crushed by a falling bunch of cereal boxes or something, but does this mean the Con doesn't buy groceries? Of course not. I say we live with courage, and though life involves risk, we should not flee from it, but embrace it. Con is correct that Predator and Will Smith aren't poltergeists, and Shrek is probably not even real, so. . . I don't know where I came up with all that. Probably too much coffee or something. Against Con's Arguments: 1. Con says that because poltergeists have "strong negative emotions" that they can't have powers that benefit otters. However, the fact that some things with strong negative emotions CAN benefit people shows this argument is false. A case in point: a vicious doberman can save you from a pack of ninjas sent to assassinate you. The dog has strong negative emotion for sure, but if he saves you from the ninjas, he has "benefited you." The Con is clearly overthrown on this point. Vote Pro! 2. Poltergeist in German means "noisy spirit." I do not fault the Con for not knowing German, as it is probably the ugliest language in existence, but by "poltergeist" it is only implied a spirit which makes noise. If a demon, which is a spirit, makes noise, it is a poltergeist. Anyway, it doesn't matter if they're benevolent or not, as I said: bleach isn't benevolent, but if it wasn't in a swimming pool, the swimming pool would be covered in slime, a home for frogs, toads and salamanders. Vote Pro! 3. Again, Con is re-hashing the old argument that because something is potential a source of unimaginable iniquity, it can't be used for good purposes. I have cited many examples for this. It is true that there is a great deal of risk involved, and one may lose one's soul in the process, but we shouldn't be cowardly lions like in the Wizard of Oz, or like brainless Scaredy-crows. We should be like Dorothy and Toto --- courageous, noble, fearless before the march of flames. I have never been so certain of my position in my life. Thank you, Con, for your interesting remarks. Round 2 will be pivotal, for sure.