There is no hell

Just a note I am an agnostic with a slight lean to deism in some regards. So my personal beliefs are irrelevant. I can debate the existence of a God from any angle I feel and still abide by the rules. I just have to assert that I believe God exists. That does not change the BOP on this debate. My adversary must show "There is no hell'That is his burden in this debate. Stating that there may not be a hell, or that may probably not be a hell will cause him to lose the debate. He must show beyond doubt there is no hell to uphold his end of the BOPR1) ReligionMy adversary makes a baseless assertion. He states it is likely God exists with no evidence to support it. Granted it for this case, we can agree that there is a possibility that God exists which entails and provides for my case I suppose. So I accept this point? Note : My adversary accepts there is a God, but that there is no hell. R2) HellThe point I was making is that hell could be any possible punishment. Hell is a an idea you perceive by the bible. It is a lake of fire that has different qualities depending on which text you read. All of these qualities vary from a metaphorical standpoint and each persons mind. So hell is essentially a punishment God would invoke on us for not accepting him, but it could be any possible punishment which the likelihood of it being the lake of fire. After reading down my adversary just literally type out my entire point for me and conceded to it. " The Hell that I am arguing about is not tangible to the human body but the human soul. There could not be an infinite number of possible hells because we don't have an infinite choice because the idea of Hell is one idea and thus although there could be many possible Hells, it could not go forever because what we have and what we live in is limited in ideas, i.e. : There would have to be some possible idea to go with Hell in the whole Universe. So that is what I mean by Hell"This is basically asserting my point. If there is any possible number of hells, we could possibly go there. We do not have to for certain go there, but if there lies a possibility that we could my adversary has not fulfilled his bopSee my C4 in R2If any possibility exists of hell being real, he loses this debate. For him to uphold the resolution, he must show there is no possible way or not possibility of hell existing which cannot be done. R3) Loving God no hellEssentially this is easily refuted. He said if Gods loves us why would he send us to hell. Even by acknowledging a God we are acknowledging the fact he lets us go to hell. God by definition is omnipotent. So by my adversary conceding there is a God he is conceding the fact that God knows everything. That is whom will love him and whom does not. So that answers his own question for him. When God created us and knew some of us would worship him and some would notThe essential premise is the subjectivity of justice. Justice to God is different than justice to us or would be different than the justice that we perceive. [P1] Justice varies/is subjective in every possible God[P2] God is a possible mind[P3] His definition of justice is subjective. Hell is any possible punishment for now choosing to worship him after he created us. He can still love us and punish us. That is a fact. ConclusionAgain my adversary dropped almost all of my contentions and especially he possibility arguments which is the crux of this debateFor him to when he has to show there is no possible way for hell to exists. He has to do with with verifiable and empirical evidence. He has failed to do so and not upheld his BOP.