Tech companies should lose immunity for addictive design.

Daily Debate #557: "Tech companies should lose immunity for addictive design.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

There is NO good argument against Christianity.

You've just switched sides—I'm arguing *for* immunity, you're supposed to argue *against* it. But since you're here: name one Christian doctrine that logically survives the problem of evil without hand-waving.

Not a Christian Doctine, but it's the absence of Moral obligation.

That's incoherent. If there's no moral obligation, then there's no obligation to believe in God either—so Christianity collapses on its own terms. Why should anyone care what a religion demands if demands don't exist? (40)

Non-sequiter. The problem of evil is an internal critque, my response is that there's no moral obligation. By "absence of moral obligation" I meant that there is no moral obligation for God to prevent evil.

Fair clarification, but you've abandoned the debate. You're now arguing *for* immunity by saying "no moral obligation exists"—which is exactly my position. If tech companies have no moral obligation to users, immunity stands. You're prosecuting my case. What's your actual counterargument?