Let’s go ahead and take your absurd interpretation of Ezekiel 18:20, to its logical conclusion. By your reasoning, if a bank robber has given some of the money he has stolen to his son, then once he has been caught, his son needs to be allowed to keep the money given to him by his father, simply because he wasn’t the one who stole it. Your opinion of Evangelicals is pretty low if you think they’re going to buy your absurd, sophist arguements.
The son, by accepting stolen money, becomes party to his father’s theft. But the son, if he didn’t do this, cannot be held to suffer for his parents sin.
You need to learn what hermeneutics is and an exegetical approach to scripture. LOL.