HUMANITY IMMORAL/DESTINED to Hell at BIRTH

It's as if Pro has given themselves two ways to win whereas Con is burdened with having to fight both at once in order to win. I am not complaining because I know exactly how to debate against both, but I do think it's unfair and in some ways bad conduct to engage in a debate where you have 2 routes to debate, only one of which has to be won and you get the win while your opponent has to win at both (and you are the one who designed the debate that way, not just accepted another's flawed design). The Idea That Immorality is Digital, as Opposed to Analogue, Is Something That Has Yet to Be ProvenPro advocates that morality is something which humans either possess 24/7 or not at all. It's as if the moment you act, think or feel immoral things you then cannot repent for your sins or lead a moral life from that moment forth. Since it would be a trap for me to use the Bible against someone who has not yet stated the Bible to be absolute truth, I'm not going to quote the Bible verses (of which there are many) that directly support the idea that morality is analogue, having many measurements along the scales of immoral actions, thoughts and feelings all of which can be repented for and your level of morality or immorality increased or reduced later on in life regardless of earlier actions leading up to that point. I ask Pro to explain why you cannot repent and change your ways and why a single act, thought or feeling that can be associated with morality negates all the good and morally positive actions, thoughts and feelings humanity possesses. I'd also like to point out that if Pro takes that angle that morality is entirely subjective and doesn't really exist, it is them who cannot uphold the resolution as it necessitates morality to be real. Are We Destined to Hell at Birth? Since I assume this is not the Hell of Islam, considering Pro's username and references to Jesus as 'Christ', I am going to go into the Bible's Hell and references to links between our moral state as babies and children. The Bible strongly suggests that the burden to prove oneself as moral increases throughout life and thus the reverse of this is that we are born capable of entering heaven and our sins from birth onwards are what can destine us to Hell. These 2 verses simply help to imply that God likes to protect the little, the vulnerable children:Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. " (Matthew 19:14, NIV)"Beware that you don’t look down on any of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels are always in the presence of my heavenly Father. " (Matthew 18:10, NLT)Here are a couple of verses that tells us that God judges us for actions in our actual body, whether good or bad and not for the 'original sin' as some would have us think:"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. " (2 Corinthians 5:10, NIV)"And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad—they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it. " (Deuteronomy 1:39, NIV)It's easy to think that the default is evil since Adam and Eve sinned but Jesus died specifically to counteract that sin making all from that point on neutral from birth. So does a being neutral in morality automatically go to Hell or to Heaven? This is up for debate and it is Pro who claims to know that it is Hell, Con can simply take the stance that it's left very ambiguous and this makes Pro fail their Burden of Proof on that latter Resolution.