Worshipping poltergeists is not that bad of an idea

Unfortunately Pro's attempts at refutation was quite poor. Let me elaborate furthur. 1. Firstly, Pro did not refute my interpretation of his first argument. Thus his first argument is resolved as if P has greater powers, then A who has less powers should worship P. Secondly, P tried to change the subject by quoting an example of saving a kitten with a malevolent poltergeist. Note he used the words malevolent here. Thus what if instead of saving the kitten, the poltergeist picks the kitten up and drops him from 10,000 feet in the air? I'd rather be stuck in a tree then to die a traumatic death. Thirdly, this attempt of Pro at refutation is invalid simply because his example holds no water. Pro is trying to say that saving a kitten is enough reason for worship. If Pro is right, we should be worshipping fire fighters all over the world. No need to walk on water or turn water to wine! 2. I agree to your initial sentence of "Poltergeists are potentially more powerful". But my point here is, what makes you so sure that they will use their powers to help you? Example, wouldn't you agree that a typical tiger is more powerful then an average human? In that case, why are we putting them in cages in zoos, and not worshipping them and hoping they do our biddings? Pro also claims that "ALL ancient cultures of the world make use of some ritual to favorably dispose the poltergeists to our desires.". Those rituals involved sounds a lot more like the chain and the whip don't you think? The last I checked, the definition of the word "worship" is "to treat (someone or something) with the reverence and adoration appropriate to a deity." I do not see how chaining something down to do our own biddings against its will is to treat it with reverence and adoration. 3. I noticed Pro likes to hide his own uncertainty with a play on words. Pro states "Electronic Voice Phenomena, ectoplasm, Dan Aykroyd, etc are all PERSUASIVE evidence that poltergeists are real." The sales man down the road can be very persuasive that his newest car runs only on water and has the ability to fly. Pro fails to show any scientific documentation of the existence of P. The scientific method consist of an Observation of a phenomena,using a Hypothesis to explain the phenomena, Predict and outcome using the hypothesis, and lastly Testing if the prediction matches the hypothesis. All examples stated by Pro were never tested and proven scientifically. I have googled ectoplasm and EVP and both appeared consistently associated with fraud. And using Dan Aykroyd, the actor for the movie ghost busters as an example simply proves that Pro is delusional and unable to differentiate reality from fiction. 4. Finally there are some so called evidence for me to refute. Note Pro's initial statement "Many cultures have worshipped poltergeists and have SUFFERED NO ILL-EFFECTS FROM DOING SO" The following s a paragraph taken from the link you posted. Not only does the record in this book prove it to be so. Anciently, in the reign of Lord Wen of Song, whose name was Bao (610-589 B.C.), there was a master of ceremonies by the name of Guan Gu. While he was working in the temple, a wizard carrying a cane appeared and said to him: "Guan Gu, why don't the jades and stones measure up to the standard, and why are the cakes and wine unclean, and the victims imperfect and not fat, and the sacrifices not in season? Did you do this or did Bao do this?" Guan Gu answered: "Bao is still small and in his swaddle-clothes. What does he have to do with this? It is all done by the official in charge, Guan Gu." Thereupon the wizard lifted his cane and struck him, prostrating him on the altar. At the time those people who were present all saw it and those far away heard of it. And it was recorded in the Spring and Autumn of Song. The feudal lords circulated the news and remarked: "So speedy and severe is the punishment from spirits and ghosts to him who is not reverent in performing sacrifices!" Doest this not sound like dictatorship? Now Pro do explain how is dictatorship not an ill-effect? http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. "I concede that the poltergeists may whisk us away to a land of Tim Burton-esque nightmares." Thank you Pro for that confirmation. Do note that malevolent beings have a tendency to do more harm then good. The problem with your attempt at rebutting my statement here is a question of probability. Now let me draw some comparisons. a) P (malevolent beings) are more likely to harm people then to help them. b) Terrorist (malevolent people) are more likely to harm people then to help them. c) Falling bunch of cereal boxes (malevolent objects???) are more likely to harm people then to help them. Do tell me which is a better comparison? there is no way you can disprove b) due to events such as september 11 or even the latest news on decapitating a journalist (google it if you must). I have yet to read of c) in the news paper. Do provide some evidence of it please. On my arguments, 1. Apparently Pro does not know the difference between an emotion and a descriptive word. The word vicious is descriptive. If a dog would risk its own life to save you then it would be filled with positive virtues such as loyalty, bravery and sacrifice. And most of all, it must have positive emotions towards the person it is protecting. Now assume the dog has strong negative emotions towards you too, I believe that you would have to out run both the ninjas and the dog as well. Overthrown? Apparently not. 2. Pro failed to refute my point that malevolent beings causes more harm then good. Pro has also failed to abide by his definition of P. Just to remind you, Pro specifically stated that "This debate assumes poltergeists exist as disembodied or subtle-bodied SENTIENT creatures. ". Please prove that bleach is sentient. Otherwise your argument is invalid. 3. All Pro did here was side stepping my argument. Pro also did not address my example. Pro claims that he has cited examples of doing something even if there is a great deal of risk involved. I don't see how going to a grocery store is such a great risk. Either way, I think Pro should study his examples before using them. Pro says we shouldn't be like the cowardly lions in the Wizard of Oz. But if he had actually read the original Wizard of Oz, the lion only thought he was cowardly. http://www.literature.org... The Winkies were not a brave people, but they had to do as they were told. So they marched away until they came near to Dorothy. Then the Lion gave a great roar and sprang towards them, and the poor Winkies were so frightened that they ran back as fast as they could. With Dorothy hard at work, the Witch thought she would go into the courtyard and harness the Cowardly Lion like a horse; it would amuse her, she was sure, to make him draw her chariot whenever she wished to go to drive. But as she opened the gate the Lion gave a loud roar and bounded at her so fiercely that the Witch was afraid, and ran out and shut the gate again. "If I cannot harness you," said the Witch to the Lion, speaking through the bars of the gate, "I can starve you. You shall have nothing to eat until you do as I wish." So after that she took no food to the imprisoned Lion; but every day she came to the gate at noon and asked, "Are you ready to be harnessed like a horse?" And the Lion would answer, "No. If you come in this yard, I will bite you." With these two examples, the Lion is cowardly in name only, and rises up to the occasion when it needs to. And do explain how a process where one's soul may be lost be a noble process? I have refuted all of Pro's arguments, points and example. Thus Con is definitely the right answer in this debate. Note: Do let me know the content format for the final round in the debate.