A decent god should not send people to hell for an eternity for merely not believing in him.

I believe that by the end of this you will clearly see why I have negated my opponents arguments and proved the con arguments to be true. My opponent points out every soul is important. This is true, but does not refute my argument. If every soul is important than those who could be saved and those who could not be saved stand in equal value, and since those who could be saved are substantially greater in number than those who can not be saved, you will always find god to be decent and just since he offers salvation to most.. I would like to isolate one statement my opponent makes. He asks you ton consider how many people have zero chance of following Christianity. I believe my arguments prove that number to be close to zero. This means that you will always vote con since I am the only one who actually addresses the whole of the topic and prove that god would be just to send these individuals. My opponent isolates a tiny portion of the topic and tries to win by only talking about this tiny slice of the debate. Don't allow him to do this, vote con because I address the entirety of the topic On the tribe argument, I don't believe this argument is answered well. My argument about Christian missionaries proves that Christianity has reached primitive tribes, and if they reject Christianity at this point, their damnation is just. On the argument over people of other religions, I believe that I am winning this argument as well. His argument seems to be that the chances of someone not born into the Christian faith embracing Christianity is slim. I have two response that I believe will answer this argument effectively. First, we have both agreed Christianity has spread and is known across the globe. Nearly all individuals will encounter Christianity at some point in their life, so everyone will have the chance to embrace the correct faith. Second, as long as that chance exists, then the blame still lies on the individual if they choose to not embrace god. My point over freewill solving back for most of his argument has been drastically covered, meaning you will always vote con since I have proved that free will and choice justifies damnation. As for the infant argument, there are a few things I would like to point out. The actual argument from round two was not extended through, he merely pointed out some potential flaws within my argument. I believe my argument that the infants in question would go to purgatory still stands. Even if you do not believe this, he did not extend his argument, so don't give any weight to this portion of the debate. I will answer the final argument in my summary I would like to extend my argument about free will solving back for his arguments. This argument has gone conceded, meaning that he concedes that most of the people that would fall under the resolution are justly sent to hell. By this alone I should win the round since I have prove that, on balance, god is decent and just. My opponent contends that sending innocent people to hell is bad. That is really his argument. I believe that by taking this ground, he has guaranteed you will vote con. Go back to the resolution, it speaks to ALL non believers, not just the innocent. I believe my purgatory argument and missionary argument solve for nearly all the people he discusses. Here is your choice at the end of the round. You can vote pro and affirm that sending a couple people to hell is bad, even though this does not actually support the topic put forth at the start of the debate. Or you can vote con on a few grounds, first I have addressed the entirety of the topic, second I have refuted most of my opponents arguments and proved how they are solved back, and third, I have proven that god is just in sending people non believers to hell. Even if you buy 100% of my opponents arguments, you will still vote con because I have proven that god is just in sending nearly all non believers to hell, meaning that god will always at least be mostly decent and just. You will not vote pro because you don't really know who he is discussing, he says god unjustly condemns a lot of people, but offers no evidence that I have not already refuted. You simply don't know what you are affirming if you vote pro. You are definitely not affirming the topic. For that reason alone you will vote con. Thanks for a good debate. I enjoyed it.