Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable

I thank Con for their response. Con says "In order to validate the resolution, Pro would need to prove not only that Penal Substitution was objectionable, but also the way the atonement functioned/functions." Yes I am raising objections to the penal substitution theory. Con says "Pro used the word debt, as if our sin was somehow a borrowed thing... perhaps goodness. We then try to repay the debt. However, this is inaccurate" Its not important to my argument, that goodness is borrowed, the focus and my objections are based on the other end of the transaction, the payment of sin. So I will agree that goodness is not something borrowed unlike debt. I bought up the objection of a justice system that allows the guilty to go free because a volunteered innocent accepts punishment on their behalf, Con has sought to justify this, for example Con uses the illustration of......Con says "If that executive body sees fit to pardon a person, for whatever reason, they have the ability to do so." How does this help Cons argument ?, I could just agree to the principles in this illustration and say sure ok, God can forgive for what ever reason, so God can forgive just because God choose too. Trouble is this contradicts the claim "3) Jesus wrongful death by crucifixion is necessary for God to forgive sinners" So how does this illustration support Cons argument ? Con then goes on too say in their illustration " For example, a pair of twin sisters who committed murder together were just excused. The reason was that one sister agreed to give a kidney to the other." But notice what the connection here is, the good act of giving a kidney to the other, is the reason given for the forgiveness. If we were to apply this illustration to God then God could forgive us if we do a kind/good act. Trouble is this contradicts "3) Jesus wrongful death by crucifixion is necessary for God to forgive sinners", again how does this illustration help cons argument ? Con says "Finally, in Penal Substitution theory, it is not simply Christ agreeing to pay for our sins" Sure, it may not be as simply as that, but it still doesn't change the fact that the claim still is Jesus paid for others sin. Con says "metaphysically Christ BECOMES us and pays our sin," What's the difference between christ becoming some one else, and christ metaphysically becoming some one else ? I think further explanation is needed here. Con says "It is not simply that our sin is paid for, our sin is removed from existence, metaphysically it is as though we never sinned" What's the difference between never sinning, and metaphysically never sinning ? Con says "A more fair comparison to our justice system would be if a person comitted a crime, and then the judge went back in time and prevented them from comitting the crime and comitted it himself instead" So the judge prevented the crime (so it didn't happen), but commits the crime himself (so it did happen). Also what ever happened to Jesus being sinless, in this illustration the judge is guilty because they themselves commit the crime. I suspect that Con realizes the contradictions here, Jesus is himself and some one else and some one has sinned but has never sinned. So I suspect Con is trying to justify these contradictions by implying that some how metaphysics allow for these contradictions, like I said further explanation is required here. In summary The earlier illustrations of the twins, even if accepted does not support Jesus death as necessary for the forgiveness of sin, and the last illustration is based on contradictions and just saying they are "metaphysical" doesn't change that. I look forward to Cons response.