An interesting exercise here, using the format of a moderately adversarial dialogue as a metaphor for a writer attempting to overcome his natural resistance to writing. It's kind of a stacked deck, in that all the arguments in favor of resistance are emotional and weak, whereas the voice of reason advocates strongly for engaging in the process, painful though it might be. Off the top of my head, I'd say you have it a little backwards; a much stronger argument can be made for procrastination, one that is quite logical, actually, whereas the motivation to get off your butt and write comes not from the pathways of reason, but something more akin to blind faith and a willingness to push forward without a map and with no guarantees of success or even acknowledgement.

But you write well and you have some nice turns of phrase here. My real question is one you should be asking of your own work: What good is it? What's the point? Or, to be blunt, "So what?"

That's why I called it an exercise at the outset, and such exercises can serve a valuable function. At some point, in an actual story, you may find this device useful for illuminating a deliberative process facing one of your characters, one that serves as a plot point on the path of a genuine narrative arc. But in and of themselves, exercises are simply a means of honing skills. They don't really go anywhere or do anything beyond what is attempted on the surface of the words. I note that the emotional tension, the give and take process, and the nature of the arguments is more or less the same at the end, as in the beginning. What's up next for you is to apply your evident craft in the furtherance of a genuine plot, allowing a three dimensional character to form out of the loose threads of this exercise, and enlisting your character's fundamental nature as the pivot on which your plot turns.

Take heart. That's what's up for all of us. You have some solid pieces already in place.