Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable

Con says "Although Pro is not right about my usage of the word Metaphysical, I am choosing to abandon that line of argumentation as its full impact will not be able to be realized in such a short text space." If your going to drop an argument, fine drop it, but don't assert I am wrong, then give NO justification for this assertion other than your say so, that's just annoying also You have 8,000 characters per round, with a total of 5 rounds, and according to Con "will not be able to be realized in such a short text space."...... Really ? what are you doing writing the great American novel ? Con says "However, I would like to point out that Pro still has not fulfilled his burden of proof in showing that the Penal Substitution Atonement that he is objecting to is actually the way the Bible presents the function of the death of Christ on the Cross" What the hell ? Why is Con just making stuff up, my arguments were never based on whether the bible presents a substitution atonement, I present my own objections INDEPENDENTLY of what the bible does or does not say. I ask Con to acknoweldge my objections exist on their own merits and not what the bible says or doesn't say. Con brings up the "Christius Victor" , and claim that I have to refute this other wise they win be default. When setting up this debate I had said "I as the Pro in this debate will be raising objections to the belief that "Jesus died" for our sins. My opponent as the Con will defend against my objections" I raised my objections, I defeated Con counter arguments, now they are trying to shift even more of a burden unto me, by demanding that I refute every single claim made in the name of atonement. Did I present reasons why Jesus dying our sins is objectionable? yes I did Was Con able to show these objections were false and or unwarranted ? no Does this support my claim that Jesus for our sins is objectionable ?, yup. So Con, Is this the best you got ? trying to move the goal posts ? shifting the burden of proof ? If that's the best you got for defending that Jesus died for our sins..................... Con might have a technical point here, but I made this debate assuming that the debate would be taken in good faith, considering the Con would be defending the claim Jesus died for your sins. Even at the start of the debate I had said "Elaboration on what it means that "Jesus died for our/your sins" I don't want to give a detailed atonement theory, so hopefully the basics will suffice which are........ 1) Everyone is a sinner 2) Sinners deserve punishment (usually refereed to as eternity in hell, either burning in fire and or separation from God in darkness 3) Jesus wrongful death by crucifixion is necessary for God to forgive sinners" Clearly Con new what I had in mind because previously they had said "This view is called Penal Substitution/Satisfaction and is the leading and historically orthodox view of the Attonement" Con did try to defend against my objections (see round 1), at which point I showed why their defense was false (see round 2), now that they lost that argument, they try to shift the burden unto me, by claiming unless I prove all atonement theories false, they win by default. Really, is this what you have to resort too ? Con has not being able to prove my objections that Jesus dying for our sins is false, or unreasonable or without warrant. I look forward to Pros response