Pascal's Wager is Flawed

My Opponents point: "Belief Costs You!" (Further on it is claimed I did not answer this point.)The Bible says that believing in Christ will cost you, I've already agreed with this point. That cost, however, is miniscule at best when you put the potential of eternity into the equation. This has already been stated but ignored by my opponent.My Opponents point: Pascal's Wager assumes people can choose what they believe.This simply isn't true. I've already addressed this point in the last round, but my opponent has effectively ignored my comments made on the subject.My Opponents point: God is omniscient therefore you can't fool him.No duh - the point isn't to fool God. This, again, was already addressed in my last point but ignored by my opponent. The goal is to change your perspective of the evidence that we have to see God in it. Pascal's Wager isn't calling us to have blind faith nor is it calling us to pretend to.My Opponents point: An athiest won't believe because there is no evidence.Well this is simply untrue. We all have the same evidence - it's only our interpretation of said evidence that is different. There is absolutely no contradiction between the Bible and Science, so the evidence matches up with Christianity. Therefore, the athiest should have no issue changing his point of view, as it is a logical faith in the biblical account of history.My Opponents point: Try to pretend you're something else - you can't.From whence then, does transgeneder, transracial, transabled, and transspecies come from? There are plenty of these people living in the delusion that they are someone that they're not. Regardless, that's not what the Wager is about. I'm simply refuting this comment because it is stupid.My Opponents point: "You did mention eternity and how nobody loses anything there. Not only is that slightly irrelevant, but it is just wrong. As far as eternity goes, nobody loses anything. But in life, the religious individual is the one that loses."There is so much wrong with this statement. I made the point that it is far better to have assurance in eternity, (which is eternal by the way!) than it is to have assurance in the transient. (which isn't eternal...) How much more are you risking by putting your faith in what will end than what could possibly never end? Therefore, that statement is by no means irrelevent, so don't try to pretend it is. The Bible says that the sinner loses everything - he loses comfort, God, heaven, his inheritence as a human - everything! So you can't say nobody loses anything either. (To the audience: Please note how my opponent presupposed his own position to make that claim.) In this life, the religious can lose...but if God is real then the Bible says the Christian has him by his side. The Bible says the christian has the love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control (among other qualities) of Gods spirit. What's better than that in this life? Therefore, to say the religious man loses in life is to presuppose your own point. If the Christian is right, he wins in life and in death. If the athiest is right he wins in life but loses in death. Please be careful with your pick.In Conclusion, my opponent has effectively ignored all of my arguments, restated the same arguments I've already answered, and then proclaimed "The winner should be clear" as if he had pulled some extraordinary zinger on me. No such zinger has been made. I was hoping for some substance from the final round but I feel as though none has been presented.Despite the apparent anticlimax of this debate, it was enjoyable, civil, and productive for all parties. I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion with my opponent. With this in mind, I would like to extend an invitation for a follow-up discussion on the same or another topic regarding Christianity with my opponent, or any observer who feels as though they have more to add.Thank You.