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

Thank you for your interesting and quick response. I accept your apologies for any mishaps. I am sure I made some mistakes in my reasoning here and there. It happens. ControlMy opponent states that I am correct in that there are factors out of our control in situations. But ultimately my point is that all(!) factors that determine our decisions are beyond our control. They aren't in the hands of other individuals either, as they are also deciding things based only(!) on factors that are beyond their control. Of course their past decisions have influenced some of the factors in turn (and you can "call" that a form of control), but those past decisions are also based only(!) on factors that are beyond their control. But I am unsure why my opponent even brought up the control of other individuals. Other individuals having control over our decisions has no influence on whether or not we have control. Where do thoughts come from?My opponent asks several questions starting with "where do thoughts come from?" and suggesting those thoughts come from supernatural sources. I have no answer to the "hard problem of consciousness" and although I don't believe in supernatural things I will of course in the fairness of this debate act as if those things exist. If those supernatural forces that give us our thoughts are bound by causality (as my opponent says when he is stating that duplicate souls would react the same) they will also not be in control of the factors that they base their decisions. If those forces even make "decisions". Comparing two SoulsThere have probably never been two souls in the exact same situation. The probability of that happening approaches infinitely small. But my opponent states that if two souls where(!) in exactly the same situation they would react the same. This is understandable and noble as my opponent subscribes to Causal Determinism. But this is my entire point. Imagine being Saint Peter (or whoever or whatever makes the judgement of a soul) and two souls come before you. Soul 1 is the "double" of body 1; a good Christian that loves Jesus. Soul 2 is the "double" of body 2; somebody that lived a hedonistic and evil life, filled with sin, causing other people to suffer, he is also an atheist, or maybe he even secretly believes in Jesus and isn't an atheist at all but actively hates and rejects the savings of Jesus, think of the worst person you can think of. Now you know and realise that these souls started out the same and they are shaped by decisions that where caused by factors outside of the control of these souls. Sure past decisions of soul 1 (the decisions to regularly attend church for example) influenced later decisions (giving to charity) but soul 1 had no control over the factors that steered the first few decisions of soul 1. Now soul 2 also had no control. Sure past decisions of soul 2 (the decision to skip school to torture small animals) influenced later decisions (starting a criminal gang) but soul 2 had no control over the factors that steered the first few decisions of soul 2.You state that if soul 1 had been tethered to the body 2 and soul 2 had been tethered to body 1 the roles would have been reversed. So it seems souls need to get "lucky" with what body they get attached to. They can't choose the body they get attached to because they are all the same before being affected by life, so they would all pick the same body. So something else chooses what body they get attached to.Now would you truly send soul 2 to hell to suffer eternally? Knowing that if soul 1 would have been in the shoes of soul 2 they would have reacted the exact same way? Knowing that your own(!) soul would have reacted the exact same way if you where tethered to body 2? If you did, you would be condemning soul to to hell trough no fault of their own. Prison vs. Hell. Even if prison was exactly the same as hell (which my opponent states it is not), it would still not invalidate the subject to be discussed as people end up in prison trough no fault of their own as I have shown, so they would logically also end up in hell trough no fault of their own.But in my opening statement I have boasted that I would show that hell is an unjust concept, as that is of course the ultimate goal of the subject of this debate. So I will need to work a bit harder on this prison vs. hell comparison as I do believe prison has it's merits where hell has not.Of course hell keeps transgressors away from those who abide by the divine law. So in that regard it shares the same function of prisons I mentioned. But is murder possible in heaven? Is theft? Is any other form of harming another? I would say no; otherwise it would not be paradise. So what is the harm in keeping transgressors and non-transgressors together? Why keep them away? They can't do any harm anyway. My opponent states that hell is not a correctional facility but simply exists as punishment. This very concept of "punishment" without a need for correction or teaching is unjust. The only good that comes from punishment is influencing people to do otherwise. Prisons that exist only to punish for the sake of punishing are not just.My opponent hasn't(!) stated one of the last "uses" of prison and hell, but might in the last round; in that it betters the lives of the victims (as they revel in knowing the people that hurt them are being hurt themselves). But I would say that feelings of revenge are irrelevant in heaven (and a sin to boot!). And a lot of murderers (and such) end up in heaven anyway as a lot of sinners choose to "listen" later in life.Just listen!My opponent states that all it takes to avoid hell is listen and accept Jesus saving your soul. In fact my opponent states that "which choosing to listen is 100% a choice of ours, regardless of upbringing and such, the choice of listening is ours." and "Listening is our choice, it is not something that comes and goes or an event that people do not have any control over the factors."Choosing to listen is 100% a choice of "ours", regardless of other factors? So if no other factors influence this choice, how come some souls choose to listen and others choose not to listen? My opponent said that "strength of the soul" had nothing to do with this, "upbringing" and other factors we have no control over (including our past choices that where influenced by factors we had no control over) has nothing to do with this particular choice to listen or not. So what is left? What determines this choice? What causes some souls to listen and other to shut their ears? My opponent has one round left to come up with a factor that the soul has control over.SummaryThe fact that others might be in control of our interactions or the creation of our thoughts (even if true) doesn't help this unjust system. In conclusion, according to my opponent "All it takes to avoid Hell is listening then living". But if this choice isn't influenced by the shape of the soul so far than all souls will make the same choice, and they will all end up in heaven or they will all end up in hell and I presume this is not the case. And if it is(!) influenced by the shape of the soul so far than that choice is not "100% a choice of ours, regardless of upbringing and such" because such factors shape our souls according to my opponent. In fact in that case the choice to listen or not will be determined 100% by those factors beyond our control. EndingsI want to thank futurepast05 for this lovely debate. It is an important and tricky subject that deserves the attention my opponent has given it. Futurepast05 has avoided semantic discussions and has remained both courteous and frank while I "attacked" a subject that must be central to his core beliefs about the world. Futurepast05, I would love to debate you again (on a subject of your choosing) or simply continue our conversation in a more casual tone in the comments or personal messages, if you desire. And I look forward to your last round.