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

Axioms within this debate1. "Hell" within this debate is defined as "The place of punishment described in the Christian religion".2. "fault" within this debate is defined as "responsibility for a misfortune".3. "responsibility" within this debate is defined as "Being accountable by virtue of having control over the outcome"3. "is true" within this debate is defined as "has more predictive merit when compared with any mutually exclusive statement" (A pragmatic theory of truth)So the statement that is the topic of the debate could also be stated like so:"People enter the place of punishment described in the Christian religion without them having control over this outcome and therefor not being responsible for this misfortune." is true.BackgroundI am taking the position of Pro/for in this debate. I do not personally believe in the concept of hell because I deem it an unjust concept within the definition of justice provided by the Christian religion and I think this contradicts the concept of a loving and just god. Therefor I do not think the Christian religion is a correct model of reality.I will attempt to show that hell is an unjust concept because either trough determinism or a form of randomness people end up doing evil things beyond their control. All choices are made either because of prior causes or because of random events, neither are a good basis for condemning people to eternal punishment (or even temporary punishment).Opening statementPeople are not responsible for their actions. They are born with a certain set of personality, genes, disposition and resources (which they did not choose) and trust into a seemingly random situation (which they did not choose). They make choices in life influenced by those factors. Some would say those factors are the only factors people base their choices on.So let us take a murderer as an example. The person (let's name him Brian) chose to murder based on his personality (formed by his upbringing, etc) and the situation he was in at the time (formed by prior choices, his upbringing, etc) Neither of which he choose for ultimately based on choices he choose for himself.Some people would state that there is a true form of quantum randomness in the world (or even other forms of randomness) that also have an influence on the choices people make. If this is true than Brian is in no form controlling this randomness. So Brian has no control over the situation he is in (which includes his personality and the roll of the random quantum dice) and therefor has no control of his choice.Some people would state that Brian has a soul. And that soul has a free will. I do not personally believe in the soul, but lets state for this arguments sake that an undying soul exists.Why do some souls in Brian his situation choose to murder and other souls in that same situation choose to not murder? Do "weak souls" exist? Or "evil souls"? And if so, what determines if a soul is weak or evil? If that is randomly determined it is not the control of Brian. And if Brian gets to choose his soul, with what personality, situation etc. is that choice made? Surely all those factors are beyond his control.My conclusion is that whatever factors influence the choice (personality, genes, upbringing, situation, quantum randomness, strength of the soul, etc) they are all beyond the control of Brian. Therefor Brian is not accountable because he has no control over the cause and thus no control over the outcome. If Brian is not accountable he is not responsible. And if he is not responsible he is not at fault and if he is ever thrown in hell for murdering it is not his fault that he got there.