Is accepting queen's gambit even viable?

People keep saying I'm going to lose the pawn eventually anyway if I accept, but what's the point of accepting and letting them control the center if I don't even get a single pawn for it?

I'm rain and my vendetta for you will never end DoubleA. You could've ended this any time with an apology but you choose to continually remove me from the site. Since this post got through, I know you use a word filter. There are a million ways to say the same thing and you will never filter all the words.

QGA is fun and viable for blitz to me. My rating bounces wildly between mid 1600s to low 1800s. In QGA black takes the pawn so there is no loss of material. White often plays e3 or e4 at some with e3 being more common here. There is plenty of counterplay to break down the center and opportunity for a fun game. I love it for blitz. I win and I lose like with any opening. Below are some of my wins with it for whatever they're worth. Only the last game has a player playing e4. For me openings are about getting into a game with a decent chance to play for a win via counterplay and tactics. Honestly here a lot of players don't want to play the Queen's Gambit after 1 d4 d5. I get a fair amount of Colle and Blackmar gambits and a variety of things I can't name, none of which is scary.

1. http://en.lichess.org/R8cU1ZM0140A

2. http://en.lichess.org/jpRAP49pyRHZ

3. http://en.lichess.org/bR3k9rhERYLX

4. http://en.lichess.org/S64wTsYDZ1uA

5. http://en.lichess.org/shuQoAJslNVy

6. http://en.lichess.org/QjQc4bvKiDil

7. http://en.lichess.org/pMiA6HLY6rps

8. http://en.lichess.org/qP3JbhvO303C

9. http://en.lichess.org/4g7KOkNzJqCH