Many traditionalist Churches claim that Universalism and Annihilation are just belief systems used by people who dont like the idea of Eternal Torment and would rather deny the doctrine in order to sleep better at night, justify a sinful life, be friends with the world, keep the pews full, calm anxiety, not offend anyone, not preach, or because the doctrine is very difficult to swallow without causing questions.
But personally, I think that there have been more complications raised about the doctrine of hell, to try to water down the traditional historic understanding.
Infant Limbo, which was an old belief that unbaptised babies went into some middle ground between Heaven and Hell, because the Catholic dogma states that in order to be saved, you must be baptised. But many people could not stand the thought of their babies who died being burned in the great inferno.
Belief that by saying so many hail Marys, saying so many rosaries, chaplets, and visiting shrines, they could avoid hell.
To avoid the heavy burdens of the belief that one single mortal Sin merited an eternity in hell if unforgiven, only if forgave by a priest. Basically you could sin all you wanted, as long as you were a Catholic and could partake in confession a couple times a week. Plus there always was Last Rites, where you could get last minute salvation after a sinful life.
Martin Luther started this belief that if you had faith, living sinless and good works would come naturally, and you would be saved. But you still had to monitor your salvation.
John Calvin started the "Once Saved always saved". That way, you were chosen and predestined for heaven, no worries for you.
The popular Evangelical Fundamentalist view that if you are "born again" you automatically are made this new creation and are incapable of sin, and every action you do is for the glory of God.
The modern Catholic and Protestant Churches believe that people of other religions are saved out of ignorance, or being a good person, after realizing that Hindus, muslims, jews, buddhists and other world religions had good traits and its people were not evil sons of satan. Plus it was less offensive, and having a view of hell for everyone else would not make too many friends.
Modern Churches now teach that you choose to go to hell, and that you are only there forever because you want hell.
Others view Hell as an eternal party with booze, drugs, and sex.
looks like people are making up more stupid unscriptural nonsense to lighten their fear of hell than a Universalist would. Plus it would be hard for the Christian systems to think that they are not getting all the benefits of automatic salvation by sinners prayers, BA experiences, rosaries, chaplets, ect. And they have to go through judgment(Temporary) like everyone outside their church.
Plus some Fundamentalists have a difficulty with the whole idea that everyone who made fun of them, cursed their exclusive beliefs, or made their country a secular nation will also be in paradise with them too. I've seen some Christian extremists wish hell on those who persecute them, so they dont have to endure persecution.
Many Christian groups seem to compete about what church is the most legalistic, "More legalistic than thou", "More pessimistic than thou", "Harsher than thou", "More Fire and Brimstone than thou". The Fundamentalist Churches seem to love railing on the Churches that preach more love and mercy, while they pretty much preach wrath and Judgment, and love is only minor. Personally, I think that these Evangelicals would choose to believe in everlasting Hell, than Jesus' divine nature.
In all honesty, the traditionalist churches seem to be all competing against being as far from the world as possible.
Where Universal Salvation is not about impressing the traditional Christedom by looking less worldly,(Hell in the modern world is not a popular concept), or trying to fit in with the modern day trends. The main focus is on truth.