Convert me if you can

[DeistPaladin]

Because in Islam there is something called hadith, which are basically narrations concerning the words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in regard to Islamic matters. The authenticity of hadiths are strengthened by a sound chain of narration and by numerous, corroborating reports. The hadiths are an important part of preserving the teachings of Islam (in addition to the Quran).

I'm not sure the Hadiths are universally accepted as authentic or canonical by Muslims. I've debated with some who accept some of the Hadiths but not others and one who rejects them all as folklore, that only the Koran can be used to debate Islam. I will grant that none of these are Imams or Islamic scholars so perhaps they are just heterodox Muslims. I'll just pose the question are you certain that the Hadiths are so universally accepted as true by mainstream Muslims?

If that's the case, I'd consider it to be the analog to the Book of Acts of the Apostles, which has been incorporated into the Bible as canon but nonetheless serves the same purpose. This argument's a wash.

And this reveals a contradiction between two of your arguments on Islam and Christianity, which are:

1. Islam seems to be far more crude than Christianity for several reasons.
2. That there's not a dime's worth of difference between Islam and Christianity

The first contrasts the case for Islam with the case for Christianity.
The second deals with what these religions preach, represent, the nature of their god, the nature of their afterlife, the nature of their moral code, and what they do to the people and nations that adopt them.
One is about whether or not its true.
The second is about what these religions are.
Clear?

Again, the "God spoke to me" argument of yours can also be applied to Jesus and all the other prophets of the Abrahamic religions, not only Muhammad (pbuh). Therefore, it's not a rational thing to single out only Muhammad from the other prophets in such a manner as to justify that this is what makes Islam a little more "crude" than Christianity, which is obviously wrong because that's an over-simplification of Islam, and secondly, the same thing can be said for Christianity also (that "some guy claimed that God spoke to him"). How is that any different from Islam?

The debate between whether my role-playing self should hypothetically convert to Christianity or Islam is over what Jesus was. Both religions agree that Jesus spoke to God and carried a message of revelation to the people. The disagreement is over whether he was a prophet and forerunner of Muhammad or whether he was an intercessor with God. The Christians have a slick package of supposed eye-witnesses and the traditions of a church established by Jesus and his apostles and disciples who would have personally known him or lived within his lifetime. Muslims have some guy who came along much later who wouldn't have known squat about Jesus except what he was told from the very people who he claims got it all wrong. Clear?

As I already mentioned before, there are many authenticated hadiths (or narrations) from the mouths of various people who lived during Muhammad's own lifetime which serve as eye-witness accounts of his actions, character, and his teachings. Furthermore, I can make a whole topic on the science of hadith collection and authentication if you want me to.

Fine but do any of these eye-witness accounts offer any testimony about Jesus? Again, it's about who knew Jesus better.