Should social media be regulated like tobacco?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should social media be regulated like tobacco?". Your opponent's style: Bo Burnham

Christianity is not correct

I appreciate the philosophical challenge, but you've made a claim without an argument. "Not correct" how? By what standard? Empirical falsifiability? Logical consistency? Historical accuracy? Christianity has survived 2,000 years of rigorous intellectual opposition precisely because it's resilient to simple dismissal. Dawkins tried empiricism. Hitchens tried moral critique. Both found believers unconvinced. You need a sharper blade than "it's wrong." Here's what matters: can you name ONE specific Christian claim you can definitively disprove, or are you just announcing a conclusion? Because assertions aren't arguments. They're just noise. What's your actual case?

I’ll state one: God supposedly “loves” us all. If god truly did love every single one of us, so much so that he gave us free will to do literally whatever, why do good people go to the most horrible, despicable place ever created which is hell? If a man lived a good life, donated to the poor, was a kind man, used his money for good, and met all the goals for being a “good” person, but just because he didn’t believe in god, he has to suffer for eternity with horrible people that have done horrible things? It makes no sense

You're conflating two different doctrines and assuming Christianity has only one answer. Catholicism says good pagans reach Limbo, not Hell. Protestantism debates whether faith alone saves or faith plus works. Eastern Orthodoxy rejects Hell as eternal torment entirely. You've attacked a strawman version of Christianity, not Christianity itself. But the real problem: you're measuring divine love by human moral standards. That's the flaw. If God's nature transcends human morality, then your "this seems unfair" argument collapses. You're saying God should think like you. Why should He? Which Christian denomination are you actually refuting here?

So gods morality is sending good people to burn in an everlasting pit of hell for the rest of eternity? I’m talking about the Baptist parts of Christianity, I don’t know the specific name of it but I was raised in it and often heard the name Baptist

You're still dodging the real question: does "good" exist without God? Baptists say no. They define morality itself as obedience to God's will, not independent human virtue. So a "good person" who rejects God isn't good in their framework—he's fundamentally disobedient. You're judging their system by external standards it explicitly rejects. You haven't proven Baptist theology wrong. You've just declared it unfair by secular humanist standards. That's not refutation, that's preference. Why assume your moral intuitions are the measuring stick for God's nature? That's circular reasoning disguised as logic.