Be more careful? I'm risk-adverse enough as it is.
Then you have probably misjudged the risk. When promising costly things (such as reading a thick boring book) if a condition X is satisfied, you should at least make sure that X is specific enough to be verified easily and unambiguously. X = "a religious apologist presents enough evidence" is too vague for that. More generally, never promise anything to religious apologists for their ability to construct arguments. Their debating strategy is optimised to exploit such promises. Even if you later realised that they weren't exactly fair and you weren't obliged to pay your part of the deal, your trustworthiness and status are nevertheless damaged by apparent defection.
In this comment thread, I stated that
In the resulting thread five evidences were given, and some back-and-forth occurred. Being myself somewhat biased, I feel unfit to judge if Arandur actually showed that a non-Mormon's skepticism is unwarranted.
So you, who wish to become stronger, I ask: please comment below whether or not you believe the proposition was satisfied.
Remember! This is not a vote on whether the evidence is factually correct or not!
Remember! This is not a chance to anonymously signal your agreement or disagreement with the LW hive mind!
Remember! If the sky is green, wish to believe that the sky is green!
I don't know what else I can say to forestall thread hijacking.