So, first the text critical details:
The early date and spread of {panta} (‘all’ generally) is actually about equivalent to the early date and spread of {pantas} (‘all persons’ as the difference is usually understood in Biblical Greek). Metzger admits as much in his textual commentary for the 4th edition of the UBS Greek Testament (which at this time is still the latest revision). The editorial committee, which weighs in a very wide and broad poll of rationales on text-critical topics from all across professional NT scholarship, decided to weigh {pantas} a ‘B’ on what amounts to grounds of internal coherency with Johannine usage elsewhere in the text; even though Metzger also admits that it is entirely possible (and even just as probable than otherwise) that scribes amended an original {panta} to {pantas} thinking it was an earlier transcription error for exactly the same reason.
He also, notably, admits that part of the board’s rationale was that an original {pantas} might have been changed early and widely to {panta} due to a proportionately widescale and early belief in a cosmic reconciliation!–more particularly, scribes may have been conforming the verse to the usage in Col 1:16-17. This of course would weigh quite the other direction insofar as a belief about this in GosJohn could be established on other grounds!
As it happens, even though I do think a belief in universal reconciliation can be evidenced or adduced from GosJohn, I tend to agree with the UBS board that {pantas} makes better sense in relation to other Johannine statements. (More on this later.) But then again, I don’t really consider an original {pantas} in this sentence to count against universal reconciliation of all sinners, either–much the contrary. (More on that later, too.)
(Incidentally, it’s amusing for me to watch Metzger and/or the board groping for some reason to get away from having to tacitly admit early and widespread UR tendencies, by appealing instead to the possibility that {pantas} was changed to {panta} thanks to “Gnostic speculation”. True, the spiritually elite secretive and exclusionary Gnostic groups wouldn’t want a verse to read that all persons would be drawn to Christ; and might on the other hand be comfortable with the notion that all creation will be resolved back into God, undoing the tragic ‘fall’ of creation at all in the sense of several Eastern religions and philosophies–which {panta} might on the surface be read to mean. But that these avowed secretive and minimal-initiate groups would be substantially responsible for such a widespread and early alteration across many public familes of GosJohn copies, especially at a time when the authorities responsible for making public copies were constantly isolating Gnostic groups even further, is proportionately improbable.)
The upshot is that I’m good to go either way, {pantas} or {panta}, on external text-critical criteria (which is about even either way). I’ll show later why I think {pantas} might be the better choice contextually with other key portions of GosJohn (i.e. on internal criteria). But for now, I want to point out (a) it is not in fact externally secure which word was originally used; and (b)the word ‘man’ is not in fact explcitly used in the Greek text.
This other fact, that the word ‘man’ (or ‘person’, anthropos) is not explicitly used in the Greek text, doesn’t necessarily mean translators are wrong to include ‘men’ or ‘persons’ in the English translations. As Tom (TGB) has correctly said, if {pantas} was original, then the implication would colloquially be “all persons” compared to {panta}. There might be other grounds for ignoring the personal quality of the word, but those would need establishing. Alternately, a translator might choose a more general ‘all’ (as if panta not pantas–assuming the translator goes with pantas of course!) in order to leave open interpretative possibilities based on context. But then, those would have to be established, too, on good grounds, rather than only staying with a more indistinct meaning.
You suggested (or rather declared by revelation or something) that {pantas} (the masculine plural term) must refer to judgment, such that the meaning of 12:32 would be that if Christ is ever raised up He would be drawing all judgment of the Father onto Himself.
Actually, there are several universalists on the board (RanRan himself being one of them, if I recall correctly) who would agree that Christ has suffered all punishment from the Father upon Himself–and therefore there will be none for anyone else! i.e., there are universalists who appeal to this idea precisely as a main ground for their universalism. For myself, I think the notion runs against any coherent trinitarian theism, among several other problems (including proper textual attestation). But in any case the grammar couldn’t mean that here: as Tom has (again) pointed out (though very rudely so), the masculine plural {pantas} doesn’t remotely fit the singular feminine {krisis}! The plural neutal {panta} wouldn’t fit much better, either.
One could, strictly speaking, appeal to bad grammar as the explanation; but the strength in favor of the idea otherwise would have to be very strong, and such a defense would not be based on the actual data but only offered as an explanation despite the data. (If an argument from bad grammar could be made on the basis of an underlying Aramaism being retained, especially since Jesus is speaking here by report, that would be stronger–at least by being an argument from bad grammar, even if only hypothetically so, instead of an argument that the grammar must be bad there. But to say the least, you haven’t made that argument yet. 
)
Another issue, though perhaps relatively minor, is that (as has often been noted) the verb {helkuso} has the connotation of dragging, a rather stronger term than drawing. This would fit universalistic arguments elsewhere to the effect that scriptures indicate the final reconciliation won’t be easily done for some people but requires extreme effort by God (including in and as Christ). I am not aware of any non-universalist anywhere, though, who would even argue in principle (much less from scriptural testimony) that the Son had to drag the Father’s punishment from Him with maximal effort on the Son’s part! Perhaps you would care to be the first in my experience to do so? (That would be an interesting strategy and tactical set, at least. 
)
Of much more importance, as some respondents have already mentioned (though rudely and not in as much detail as they could have done), the verse should be compared to very similar statements by Christ (and/or the Evangelist in inspired commentary) in GosJohn, where possible, as these may help clarify the meaning of what is being said.
So for example, John 3:14 seems to be about the Son of Man being lifted up like Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness so that all might look upon Him and so come to faith in Him. It doesn’t seem to be about Christ being lifted up so that He could thus draw all the Father’s judgment (or crisis) upon Himself. On the contrary, that very term {krisis} is mentioned (either by Jesus or by the Evangelist in commentary) not long afterward in verse 19. And it has less than nothing to do with punishment coming from the Father upon the Son (for whatever reason). Rather, “this is the crisis!–that the light (i.e. Jesus, as in GosJohn 1) has come into the world, and persons love the darkness rather than the light, for their acts were wicked. For everone who is committing sins is hating the light and is not coming toward the light, lest his acts may be exposed. Yet he who is doing the truth is coming toward the light that his acts may be made manifest, for they have been wrought in God.”
This admittedly talks about the choice of sinners to refuse salvation; God’s side of things is to enlighten them in order to lead them to salvation. And that this is evident even in the judging of Christ (as testified to elsewhere), is maintained in GosJohn by the declaration on the one hand that Christ shall be the judge of sinners, yet on the other hand Christ somehow does not judge and did not come into the world to be judging the world but rather to save it. The theological tension can be resolved along this line: that the judgment of Christ is not for its own purpose apart from (or antithetical to) the salvation by Christ, but rather is subordinate to the action of salvation of sinners by Christ.
Relatedly, at John 6:44, what is being “dragged” or drawn to Christ (by the Father this time) is not punishment upon Christ but persons. Which persons?–what is the extent? “All” {pan} that the Father has given to Him; these shall come to Him, and He shall lose none of them but rather shall raise them on the Last Day, nor shall He cast aside anyone who comes to Him. (Which, I would say, is basically the point and the hope expressed in RevJohn 22, with lead-ins from 21, after the lake of fire judgment. But I offer that for illustrative comparison, not as weight for this exegetical reading. Besides which the interpretation of Rev 22 in light of preceding chapters is a whole other huge discussion. 
)
Interestingly, the promise of John 6:44 and 12:32 may itself be a callback to Jeremiah 31, where after being wholly destroyed by the Lord’s chastisement unto utter death (15) rebel Israel (or Ephraim, in reference to Absalom the rebel son of David; also “the faithless daughter”) repents, returns and is restored (16-22). Verse 3, which prefigures this, prophecies the Lord appearing to Israel–probably first to loyal Israel here, i.e. those who have survived in v.2–saying, “I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness.” But the whole point to that chapter as a whole, is that God is not saying this only to loyal Israel but also manifestly disloyal Israel over whom loyal Israel (Rachel) weeps. God’s consolation of her hopeless unconsolability is precisely that He has not forgotten her destroyed rebel children, but is in the process of saving them, too!
At any rate, internal evidence shows there would be good reason to consider {pantas} original at John 12:32 (since in similar places elsewhere in GosJohn Jesus and/or the Evangelist is talking about persons) or to consider {panta} original (since in those places, when ‘all’ is mentioned it is emphatically stronger than {pantas}.) Whereas, there has not yet been presented any coherent internal evidence that {pantas}/{panta} refers to {krisis} – on the contrary, the grammatic evidence is strongly against it.
Still, it was a better try than some other things you’ve done since arriving here, Aaron37, and I appreciate the attempt. I wish the countercritiques had been less hostile (to start with anyway).
