"God is evil because the bible says most people will burn in hell forever."

“the overall claim being made by my opponent is a horrific oversimplification.”  This is a false statement stated by my opponent because of what the bible says.
“This can be alternatively referred to as a Single Cause Fallacy.”  I don’t think the single cause fallacy applies here because I think that they are different concepts.
“To help the audience begin to grasp just how complex this issue is, and why it can't simply be boiled down to declaring a deity "evil" merely because you disagree with it”  I don’t care what God believes. I care about what he does. An example I would like to point out is Kim Jong Un. He has committed human rights abuses to millions of people.  He is a bad entity because he does bad things. Science confirms that there have been about 100 billion humans in the history of planet Earth, 94% of which are dead(). Since the bible states that most of us are burning in hell, that means that God commits human rights abuses to tens of billions of people, a few thousand times more frequently than Kim Jun Un.  God also makes them suffer in hell more than Kim Jong Un does in death camps. As harsh as the North Korean death camps are, hell is much, much worse then any death camp that could have been invented by mankind.
Time for me to analyze/rebuttal the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy;
“The views about hell in particular include very different conceptions of divine love, divine justice, and divine grace, very different ideas about free will and its role (if any) in determining a person’s ultimate destiny,”  What other views are there? Where in the bible does it state that hell won’t be eternally torturous, or extremely painful?
“But the meaning of these texts, particularly when read in their original languages, is rarely transparent to all reasonable interpreters; that is, not even all who regard a relevant text as authoritative seem able to agree on its correct interpretation.”  Where in the bible does it state that hell won’t be  eternally torturous, or extremely painful? I’ll cite my bible verses later since you ask for proof later in your argument.
“In other words, people a lot more knowledgeable on the topic with much greater education can't even agree on the basic facts which my opponent has alleged.”  In order for this to be true, the side denying what God would have said would need biblical evidence to support this.
Here, you basically say that since God is God, he can do whatever he wants.  However, this applies an inconsistent moral standard to a hypocritical God who says that “Thou shall not murder”.  Although God is more powerful than any of us, it is unjustified for him to burn people in hell forever, especially for trivial sins such as for lying, for adultery, and for not attending Church on the Sabbath.  Although these actions may be slightly bad, none of them are worthy of an eternal punishment in hell.
“But what about Jesus’s Sacrifice.  He paid for your big boy sins in full” you may ask.  Even Jesus Christ has incredibly tough standards for accepting his promises.  He says to sell all you have and give to the poor(http://biblicaltheologytoday.com/go-sell-give-poor/)(Matthew 19:21).  While I am not advocating for this, it shows just how strict Jesus wants us to live in order to serve him well enough to be able to accept him as our savior.  While you may cite various other verses, these verses have a strong tendency to be Old Testament and therefore, not as reliable as the New Testament when analyzing the strict code of Christianity.  Maybe that is why many religious nations tend to be poor. They choose to be. Since most people don’t do this, Jesus says that he doesn’t accept them into salvation. He says it’s easier to put a camel through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Time for me to prove that the bible says:

1. "Most" people will go to hell:  “Enter through the narrow gate.  For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.  But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14)/https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-21.htm
   
2. All of those people will be there "forever."
   

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”  Matthew 25:40-46/https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/passage/?q=matthew+25:40-46
 

1. "No one" in hell deserves to be there.
   
2. That this makes God "evil" beyond any shadow of doubt.
   

“the Bible holds only a scant few references”  The bible still references it. We know a satisfactory amount about hell to determine the content of this debate.  People have different opinions, but I don’t think those opinions are founded upon by New Testament bible verses.
One of these views is the view of Annihilationism. “This view argues that although hell does exist and some people will be sent there, they will not be there "forever" as my opponent claims.“  How is Annihilationism backed by the bible?
“Even some members of the Roman Catholic Church have broken with the Church to advocate this view.”  Like whom?
The Universal Reconciliation view requires New Testament biblical evidence in order to be a legitimate source on how people get to heaven/how they go to hell.
“...no traditional Christian doctrine has been so widely abandoned as that of eternal punishment. Its advocates among theologians today must be fewer than ever before.”  Many Protestant denominations believe in eternal hell so to say that almost no one believes it is like this is simply false.
“my opponent has to establish that there is something inherently evil about hell itself.”  In hell, the following occurs:

• Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
  
• Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
  
• Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone.
  

“there is already significant doubt that "most" people go to hell or that they remain there "forever" as my opponent claims.”  I confirmed that if the Christian God exists, then most people are going to hell with Matthew 7:13-14.  The verse, “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matthew 25:46)
“Secondly, the claim that "no one deserves" to go to hell is a terribly high burden to meet, because of the inherently subjective nature of this opinion.”  I said no one deserves to burn in hell forever.  All those people that you mentioned may deserve hell for some time, but they don’t deserve it forever.  
“God does not send anyone to Hell.”  He sends people to hell for disobeying him.  We say, “My parents sent me to time out” not, “I sent myself to time out”.  This also would be like saying that Stalin did not send Russians to death camps, but rather the Russians chose to go there for disobeying Stalin.  If it were in Stalin’s power, he would have made the Gulags an eternal punishment. None of the Russians that suffered in the Gulags/Death camps deserved it forever, and similarly, no one deserves to burn in hell forever.  God is worse than Stalin since God commits much worse human rights abuses to tens of billions of people. If you would say that the people God kills are sinful, doesn’t this also apply to Stalin. They people he killed weren’t perfect. Even though Stalin wasn't perfect, is he doing God’s work with the Gulags?
Make no mistake – hell is not a place where people are simply “sent to.” “Just as there is a way that leads to heaven, there is also a way that leads to hell – and it’s heavily signposted. It’s a path that someone decides to take, a direction they have been heading in and a course they have set, long before they get there.”  The way to heaven is extremely strict and the failure to do what orders you to without repentance results in eternal hell. Can you imagine if someone killed you for not attending a meeting? Well, God is doing much worse than killing you, for a similar offense (not attending Church for example, a weekly meeting that God requires all followers to attend).
“of which he seems to have only the most rudimentary knowledge.”  Here, he calls me stupid, and I would like the judge to classify this as poor conduct.
“The people who will end up in hell, whomever they are and whatever sort of life they may have lived, will finally arrive there because they simply rejected God, and not for any other reason”  God has strict standards for them to live by.  He demands that we sell all we have and give to the poor.  People shouldn’t have to choose between being incredibly poor and burning in hell as their only 2 reality options.  However, this is how God set it up due to the sinfulness that humanity inherited. He also is according to many secular personnel someone who advocates for the death of children for cursing their parents.  The Bible states, “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.”  (Matthew 15:4)

“because we do not believe we deserve to go there. Why? Because we are not murderers or rapists (most of us).”  Murderers and rapists don’t deserve to go there either, at least not forever.
“We are being compared with God himself. Do you think you fall short when compared with perfection?”  God is not perfect. He claims to be multiple times in the bible, but this is him making a claim without any evidence.  Him advocating for the death of various groups for a small to no offence is an example of him not being perfect, despite his book stating the opposite.
“He is required to allow us into His heaven or that He should be labeled "evil" for sending something that He created to a place that He created?”  This is just like saying that child abuse should be legal because if your argument were applied to parents, it would be, “Should this parent be labeled as, “evil” for torturing a child in a place that he owns?”  Just because you create something does not mean you have a right to torture that human in a place that you create.
“Arguing that God owes us something is like arguing that Pizza Hut owes something to a cardboard box used to deliver a pizza, or that Pizza Hut is "evil" for throwing away unused boxes.”  Pizza Hut owns the pizza boxes. They can do what they want with them. God on the other hand, dos not own us anymore then our parents do. They both created us. Just because you create something does not mean you own it.  Moreover, there is not much of a correlation between owning something and creating it. I may own an apple, but did I create it? No. Did a farmer create it? No. He made it by taking care of an apple tree. But he made it from other materials, not creating it from nothing.  Just because you create something does not mean you own it and vice versa.
“So why should we get to label a power greater than ourselves as anything at all? Who are we to decide?”  As an example, this is like me asking, “Why should we label Bernie Sanders? He is a power greater than ourselves.”  It doesn’t matter how powerful someone is. If they commit things that are bad, then they should be held accountable for their actions.
“We are saying that we know better than God, and that his morality is subject to ours.”  While God is smarter than Humans in general, it would be safe to say that humans know more then God in terms of justice for humans.  God has gone corrupt with his power. You like quoting philosophers a lot. I would like to quote someone similar, Brutal Truth. He said:
The following verses are a classic example of wholesale slaughter and rape under the direction of the same God they claim to be so merciful.  A quick sample of this tale: On the way to the promised land, God had Moses wage a war campaign against the Midian. Moses was told to put every Midianite to death, plunder anything of value, set fire to their towns where they lived and all their encampments.  Moses gave the orders to his troops (the sons of Israel) and went on a further campaign. On the return of his troops Moses was enraged with the commanders of the army. He said, “Why have you spared the life of all the women and children? You are to kill all the children and kill all the women who have slept with a man. The lord says spare the lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, and take them for yourselves, so that we may multiply into a great nation.”  Yes, friends, this is biblical infinite mercy and compassion for you. I particularly like the way that Moses got upset with them for sparing women and male children, but allowed the young girls to be kept for later raping.
I have had some Christians proclaim that these Midianite girls were not taken for raping but marriage.  How ridiculous! If you continue further in the scripture you will find that marriage to a Midianite was a crime against God.  A man named Zimri broke the law and married a Midianite woman. This angered God so he sent a plague among the Hebrews.
“God’s morality must conform to ours.”  The Old Testament preaches morality, but in practice,  it kills people for belonging to a different tribe, which is SJW in a nutshell (punishing the whole group for the actions of the few).  The New Testament, the ones Christians love to point out due to its relative earthbound civility, states that most of us are burning in hell forever in Matthew, that hell is extremely painful in Matthew and other bible authors, and they somehow claim that humans deserve to burn there for mostly trivial sins.

My opponent hasn’t responded within three days, and being that this is the final round of the debate, I’m left with little else to say other than to summarize the problems that I’ve identified in my opponent’s argument.
.
Problem #1; Oversimplification
My opponent’s argument rests upon what he claims the Bible says. However, a good reminder here for the audience is the words which I previously quoted from Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy;

.
Problem #2; "...the [B]ible says most people will burn in hell forever."
The entire basis of the claim my opponent has made rests upon his claim that “most” people will “burn in hell forever.” The keywords there are “most” and “forever” because without those qualifiers, this entire argument falls flat.
I have shown that considerable doubt exists in this portion of the argument by demonstrating how legitimately qualified, educated and intelligent theologians have presented two alternate views to this claim;
1. Annihilationism (a form of Conditional Immortality) is the belief that hell and those contained therein will eventually be destroyed. Many variations on this concept exist, based on different beliefs about when and how people contained in hell may be destroyed. However, if any form of this belief is correct, then my opponent’s claim that people are kept in hell “forever” effectively fails.
2. Universal Reconciliation is the belief that all people will eventually be reconciled to God. If this view is correct, then not only would the “forever” element of my opponent’s claim be negated, but even the “most” element would become effectively moot.
If either of these two views proved to be correct, then my opponent’s argument fails. My opponent has rested his entire argument upon a tiny minority of cherry picked proof texts, which makes his argument very weak and questionable from a theological standpoint. Conversely, many of the supporters of Annihilationism, Conditional Immortality and Universal Reconciliation are fully qualified and well-educated theologians who have written entire books advocating for their views. Allow me to remind the audience of a few key quotes from those individuals.
Christian scholar Richard J. Bauckham said,

Problem #3; “No one deserves to burn in hell forever.”
This element of the claim is little more than an opinion.
Per the above, I’ve already demonstrated that there is significant reason to doubt the “forever” element of my opponent’s claim. If punishment in hell does not last forever, or if there is still the possibility of reconciliation even for those who are there, then the idea that people don’t deserve to be there has major flaws.
Additionally, even aside from the doubtful nature of the claim itself, the concept that “no one” deserves to be sent to hell is a highly subjective opinion. Many people of extreme evil have existed throughout history, ranging from deranged serial killers to outrageous war criminals. Can my opponent really be confident in saying that none of those people deserve hell? Can he present any quantifiable evidence to support that opinion? I don’t see how.
But most importantly, this is another way in which my opponent has completely misrepresented Christian theology. My opponent claims that people are sent to hell for “trivial sins” like not going to church on Sunday. But as I’ve demonstrated with numerous citations throughout this debate, “trivial sins” aren’t the reason why people end up in hell.
.
Problem #4; “God is evil…”
Without the above addressed elements backing it, this statement becomes little more than an opinion. If punishment in hell doesn’t last “forever” then this entire argument is a flop. If at least some people deserve to be in hell, this argument has some shortcomings. With all of the problems I’ve already established above, we could easily dismiss this element of the claim because the other elements fail to properly support this astounding conclusion.
But even this particular statement itself has problems without the rest of the argument being considered. I think one of my sources put it best when they wrote…

.
Problem #5; Abuse of the Rules of Biblical Hermeneutics
 
Although all of the above is problematic for my opponent’s argument, this is the single greatest key reason why his argument is wrong. Simply put, everything about how his argument was assembled and presented violates every major principle of the way that qualified theologians interpret and understand Biblical scripture.
 
As I pointed out previously, hermeneutics is the science of interpretation, especially interpretation of Biblical scripture. Whenever we make an argument based on “what the Bible says” this is the science we need to utilize and make certain that we have correctly applied to be sure that we do indeed correctly understand what the Bible says. One of the most essential rules of hermeneutics is context.
 
Rather than engaging in poorly thought out proof texting the way my opponent does, theologians who apply hermeneutics need to not only understand the individual context of the passage or verse they are citing, but they also need to know many more details about the context. The totality of the context includes the context of the verse itself, the context of the larger passage/paragraph in which that verse appears, the context of the book in which the verse is contained (the genre of the book), and the overall content and context of the Bible as a whole. If the context of an individual verse or passage appears to have a contradiction with another element of scripture, or if the reader is otherwise confused or uncertain, then more investigation and reading is needed to clarify the actual meaning of the text. Oftentimes, we even need to refer back to the original languages in which the text was written, as well as consider the cultural differences between ourselves, the original author and the intended original audience to fully comprehend what is really meant to be communicated by a particular passage of scripture.
 
So ultimately, you have to ask yourself this; Should I believe an internet user who says “God is evil” because he cherry picked and proof texted a few obscure verses of scripture with no apparent knowledge of the context? Or should I believe thousands of years worth of qualified, educated and intelligent men and women who applied the legitimate sciences of hermeneutics and philosophy to understanding the problem of hell and human morality and came up with a broad selection of significantly more eloquent answers?
 
Understand that I am not here to preach Christianity or convert anyone. I do not begrudge anyone who wishes to be an atheist, agnostic, pagan or anything else.
 

I apologize about the forfeit.  I ran out of time.  This round, I'm basically saying that since I have a Rough draft for an essay and an AP Chem Test both due tomorrow, I won't be able to have enough time for an argument.  Want to call this debate a tie?