"People enter hell trough no fault of their own" is true.

My opponent is also intelligent and articulate which gives me hope for a fun and productive debate. RandomnessMy opponent states it is his understanding that I mean things like "death, births, car accidents, etc" to be random. However I do not. apparently I have not been clear enough on this point. In both my background and opening statement I have only used the term "random" in cases where I was referring to quantum randomness, not the seemingly(! ) random events of our lives. My opponent is entirely correct that on a larger than quantum level there is less and less (if any) randomness because of the law of large numbers. I am at the moment unsure whether or not quantum randomness exists as there are multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics. But, as my opponent hasn't argued for quantum randomness as a source of free will I will be happy to forget all about randomness within the confounds of this debate. So let us continue as if Causal Determinism is real and we shall not speak of randomness again. LawMy opponent states that people are responsible for their actions and that we have free will to do what we want, when we want if we chose to do so. My opponent provides no argument for this fundamental assertion but does(! ) provide an often heard objection to free will: "Law". I actually agree with my opponent on this point. The fact that a law exists is not magical deterrent to act in a certain way. People can and often do break the law and indeed they are thrown in prison for it. In so far I also agree with the fact that a divine law would not rob people of free will. Let us continue with the agreement in mind that law doesn't disprove the existence of free will. Choosing how to respond to situationsMy opponent states that "a person might not be able to control events, as people are born into certain circumstances, it IS our choice on how to deal with the situation" but gives no argument why the choice "how to deal with a situation" is different from any other material chain of events that is bound to causality. It is true that a person can chose how to deal with a situation, but what choice that person makes is determined by factors beyond their control (some would say these factors are "part" of the very situation). My opponent asks whether our hypothetical murderer took the murder his father committed as "normal". The answer to this question is that it depends on factors beyond Brian's control whether or not he took it as normal. The same can be said of any other question my opponent asked. "Did he learn from his father being imprisoned? ", "Could he have not chosen better friends? " etc. The answers to all these questions is "Brian did what he did because of factors beyond his control. "So in conclusion: people can choose how to react to a situation but that choice depends on prior causes and factors beyond their control. It is not random at all. It is Determined by Causality. Casual Determinism. On soulsMy opponent states "Out of our consciousness and awareness to our surroundings, we have the will to react in certain ways. ". I agree that we have a certain will to react in certain ways and that some of that will comes from our consciousness and awareness. But we have not chosen what "will" we end up with. My opponent answers my question "Why do some souls murder and others don't? " with "people have different morals based on their upbringings, personality, genes, situation etc. " which are all factors that are beyond the control of the soul. So does my opponent agree with the fact that some souls seems to choose murder and others don't because of factors beyond their control? No, because my opponent follows up with ". .. and so they choose with their free will to act differently based on their current situation. ". If two souls would be in the exact same situation (both have the same upbringings, personality, genes, situation etc. ), why would some souls murder and others don't? What causes the one soul to do the one thing and what causes the other soul to do the other thing? My opponent seems to try and answer that with the following statement "It is not the strength of the soul, but rather the reaction to uncontrollable events in our lives (which are controlled events in other people’s lives, based on their choices and reactions to previous situations) that determines the outcome of an event. " and with the statement "So, technically, these “factors” of Brian, are really all in his control based on his reaction to his earlier and current experiences. " and the statement "So, in conclusion, in terms of Brian, he IS accountable for his deeds because of the way he chose to respond to previous events. "In other words he states that it is this souls reaction to other(! ) events that determines the outcome of this(! ) event. I agree with this, but the reaction to other events is also(! ) caused by factors beyond the control of the soul and reactions to other prior events. So it comes down to the first choice of the soul which wasn't(! ) influenced by prior choices of this soul (because it is the first) and therefore is only(! ) influenced by choices beyond the control of the soul. My opponent states that "Souls in humans are not necessarily different", I would like to ask what exactly my opponent means by this. Because if souls are not different from each other that what causes them to choose differently in the exact same situation? Prison vs HellMy opponent frequently compares hell with prison throughout the opening statement and seems to suggest that if I accept the concepts of prisons I should logically also accept the concept of hell. "So, just as a person. .. against God’s law. ""then according to your. .. this is quite absurd. ""The law is established. .. you receive eternal life. ""By his choices, he. .. breaking the law here. "I am all for throwing people in jail. But I do not(! ) believe people are responsible for their own actions. There are many differences between hell and prison. For example: Prison stops people from doing illegal things that bother people outside of prison. But people only go to hell when they are already dead and therefore can no longer Sin on Earth. Prison sentences are finite. The punishment (hopefully) teaches people not to break the law again and (hopefully) deters them from doing it again when they get out of prison. This mechanism doesn't work with the concept of hell. The treat of sanctions like prison sometimes deters people from acting in a manner we don't want them to act. The treat of hell only stops people that believe in hell and doesn't deter people that don't believe in hell (because of factors beyond their control). In conclusion: It is just to sacrifice the well-being of people that have no control over their actions to protect other people but it is not just to punish people that only act in certain ways because of factors out of their control after death when they are no longer a treat to anybody. But even if hell had some practical means of bettering the world it still didn't mean that people entered it by virtue of having control over their actions. SummaryI agree the world is probably not random and we should not discusses randomness as it has no influence on the subject at hand. I agree the law doesn't disprove free will. I have shown souls respond to situations based on factors beyond their control and prior responses. There must have been a "first response" to a "first situation" that was based entirely on factors beyond the soul's control. Which means all responses of the soul are ultimately based on factors beyond the soul's control. Hell is different from prisons as prisons are practical means to influence the choices still being made. But even if hell and prison where the same it still didn't mean that people entered it trough fault of their own, as people enter prison trough no fault of their own. Which argues for the statement.