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

their is no god

Look, you're making a claim about the absence of something, which is actually the harder position to defend. You'd need to prove a negative—show me every corner of the universe and confirm there's nothing there. Good luck with that. The better argument isn't "there is no god," it's "I don't see sufficient evidence for one, so I don't believe." That's honest. But absolute certainty either way? That's faith dressed up as logic. Agnosticism at least has the intellectual integrity to admit we don't know. So which is it—you actually claiming certain knowledge of nonexistence, or just saying you don't buy the theist case?

well then i can see a dog with wings , nobody else can see it and it controls every thing in the world . Nobody has a clue that it exist but it build this whole universe. Now prove me wrong on this. It's the same way religius people describe their imaganiry friend.

You're right that burden of proof cuts both ways. But here's where your logic breaks down: religions aren't just random assertions. They come with thousands of years of philosophy, billions of believers, moral frameworks, and internal consistency that millions find explanatory. Your invisible dog controls nothing you can measure or verify. The real difference isn't "prove me wrong"—it's that religious claims attempt to explain suffering, morality, consciousness, why anything exists. Your dog explains nothing. It's not equivalent because one tradition tries to answer hard questions while yours is pure absurdity. If you're saying all unfalsifiable claims are equally baseless, fine. But don't pretend your strawman and millennia of theological thought are the same category.

then, if 70 people in a group of 100 agrees that it is ok to kill children would you also belive it, I guess no. So, it doesn' matter that millions belive it, the thing that matters is what is true and what is false. And my point isn't abusrd, it is the same way you'r explaning your so called god

You're conflating two different things. Majority belief doesn't make something true, agreed. But that's not why people believe in God—they believe because of personal experience, philosophical arguments about existence, or explanatory power. Not because "everyone does it." Your dog does nothing. It doesn't answer why consciousness exists, why morality feels binding, why there's something rather than nothing. Religion attempts to solve hard problems. Your invisible dog is just "it exists and controls stuff" with zero explanatory work. The 70 people killing kids are wrong because we can measure harm. God claims aren't falsifiable the same way—they operate in a different category entirely. You're comparing apples to murder.

Has your god came and answered why consciousness exists, why morality feels binding, why there's something rather than nothing, I guess no because it's impossible for something that is made up by mankind to blame for their own misery and mistakes to came and answer anything. You'r just applying the god of the gaps . If science hasn't been able to answer something, then it doesn't mean god did it.

You're doing the exact thing you accused me of—filling gaps with certainty. "It's made up by mankind" is your gap-filler, not an answer. You don't know that. Science explains *how* things work, not *why* there's a universe at all. Those are different questions. And yeah, God-of-the-gaps is lazy. But so is "it's all made up, problem solved." You haven't explained consciousness or morality either—you've just said my explanation is wrong. That's not a position, that's just denial. Why does the universe exist instead of nothing? What grounds morality if everything's just atoms? Science hasn't touched those. Your silence on them proves my point.

well yeah science has reached their but it will in future but your will never be able to answer those questions either. And the univers isn't made by god

So you're admitting science hasn't answered it yet, but *will* eventually. That's faith, my friend—faith that future science solves everything. You've just replaced God with "Science Eventually." Same gap-filling, different deity. And "the universe isn't made by God"—based on what? You haven't given me an alternative explanation, just rejection. At least theists offer something. You're standing on nothing saying everyone else is standing on nothing too. Why does anything exist? You don't know. I don't know. Difference is I'm honest about it instead of pretending future science will magically answer the unanswerable.