Pascal's Wager is Always a Losing Bet

This is intended to be a civil debate with no attacks on character, no name calling, and absolutely no foul language. I may refer to Hell as a literal place in this debate, I may not refer to Hell. I never use the word Hell as an expletive. Con's Round 1 Assertions: 1)Your first round doesn't make your position clear. Rebuttal: The title of this debate makes my position clear. If you are wagering on the existence of God, no matter if you wager that He is there and it's best to try to live with high morals, or if you wager that He is not there and you do not recognize or acknowledge any objective moral rule, either way it's a losing bet. My position is clear. It may not be understood by the readers at first, but that was the idea of the debate. .. .. .to get people hooked to try provoke thought. 2) I can only think you are what I interpret your position to be. Rebuttal: I don't know what you mean by this statement. The debate is not about what I am, the debate is to question whether or not you can win within the bounds of Pascal's Wager. I would hope you interpret my position to be thought provoking, and that you would think that I am a thinker. I hope you are not implying something unspoken and derogatory toward my character. I'm really trying to keep this as a civil discussion. My position is clear. In the title and in statements throughout. .. .. .. .. .Pascal's wager is always a losing bet. Con's request 1) Pro, please lay out your claim as to why you think Pascal's wager is always a losing bet. Response: I was hoping Con in Round one would lay out his position that Pascal's wager is not a losing bet. That would be the Con position. Con has wasted round one and failed to make any contrary statements to counter the assertion that Pascal's wager is always a losing bet. Con's Proposal 1) If you want to weasel out of that position than we should argue whether Pascal's wager is a good bet without the term always. Response: Who is trying to weasel out of their position? The title of this debate is "Pascal's Wager is always a Losing Bet" and my arguments would be expected to support, as Pro, that opening statement. I was hoping the debate challenge would be accepted with Con arguing why Pascal's Wager is not a losing bet. Apparently, Con is unable to do this and is proposing that the debate be changed to "Pascal's Wager is a good bet". This debate can very well be carried out with Con arguing why Pascal's Wager is a good bet" I will argue according to the opening statement that Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet. Are we going to have a debate or not? I was hoping to see Con give some reasoning as to why he or she thinks Pascal's Wager is not always a losing bet. Summary: I guess Con wants to argue that Pascal's Wager is a good bet. .. .. .. .I'm not sure. Maybe Con wants to argue that Pascal's wager is a bad bet, but that would be arguing in agreement with my position that Pascal's wager is always a losing bet. I would appreciate it if Con would be clear about agreeing or disagreeing with the opening statement of the debate challenge. Con should take the position that Pascal's Wager is not always a losing bet and explain why that position is held. If Con cannot take the position contrary to the opening statement, Con should forfeit the debate. PASCAL'S WAGER IS ALWAYS A LOSING BET! Not meaning to be rude by screaming here, simply emphasizing once again the clearly stated pro position that Pascal's Wager is ALWAYS a Losing Bet. I was hoping this challenge would be accepted by somebody who would take the opposing position to argue that Pascal's Wager is NOT ALWAYS a Losing Bet. If Con is unable to argue within the debate, and only able to imply character flaws against me with phrases like " I can only think you are what I interpret your position to be. " and "If you want to weasel out of that position", then Con should concede that there is no argument against the opening statement that Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet. If this is Con's non-posited/position, Con should graciously request for the debate to be cancelled and I will oblige and reinstate the debate challenge and try to spell out more clearly that I am looking for somebody to argue why Pascal's Wager is NOT Always I Losing Bet while I assert that is IS always a losing bet.