QualiaSoup, the coproducer of TheraminTrees' video I debunked a while ago, who is also TheraminTrees' brother, made a video nine years ago about the Torah's supposed immorality, in a dishonest Gish Gallop format. The video is called "Morality 2: Not-so-Good Books." It's a friquin' Gish Gallop, so brace yourself!
The intro shows four unjust laws, which are superficially similar to G-d's laws/deeds. Law 1: talking on friday leads to execution. This seems like the punishment for working on shabbas, but that only applies to Jews, the law is designed to give pleasure, and not talking for a day is nearly impossible but keeping shabbas isn't even hard. Law 2: leader can kill anyone for any reason. G-d doesn't kill people for no reason, he kills people as a punishment. Law 3: citizens forced into crime via mind-control are punished. G-d did not remove Pharaoh's free-will, but gave him free will. Law 4: criminal's children are killed. G-d does not punish children for their parent's sins unless the children continue the sins.
He then shows examples of people defending the unjust laws, in ways that even Christian apologists would rarely resort to, and Christian apologists are notorious for using extremely bad arguments.
He says that violating Shabbas, being homosexual, and not showing virginity at marriage are victimless crimes. The first two harm the people committing the crimes, as all Torah laws are designed to give people pleasure. The last of them, however, as Rashi says, is referring to when there is sufficient evidence of adultery, which is not a victimless crime.
70,000 people were killed when David took a census not in accordance with law. This is not immoral, as the people who were killed were already wicked, but they died in this plague as a sign of David's sin. I'm not sure why the animals had to die in the flood, but that doesn't mean it was immoral!
As mentioned above, Pharaoh was given free-will when his heart was hardened. Yechezkel 14:9 means that a prophet who is enticed by his Yeitzer Hara (evil inclination) to lie will be punished. G-d gives people free-will.
Innocent children, as mentioned above, are not punished for their parent's misdeeds. I am also not sure why the Amalekite children had to die; that does not make it immoral, believe it or not. People eating each other was not the punishment; they were merely denied food. The choice to eat each other was still theirs.
He lists various supposedly evil punishments. Rape (I am not sure if that is even what Zecharia 14:2 means, but supposing it means rape): I am not sure how that is moral; my lack of knowledge of how it's moral does not make it immoral. Slavery: Ah, a classic PRATT. It was a different kind of "slavery." Killing of babies and children: Yet again I am not sure why the children had to die, and am not sure if the babies died at all; still ain't immoral. Familial cannibalism, as mentioned above, they were simply denied food, but the choice of cannibalism was still theirs. Mass "murder": All the righteous Egyptians had converted to Judaism, and all the Egyptians that hadn't were wicked, and deserved to die.
He says that one who even attempts (and many do indeed attempt and succeed) to defend seemingly immoral passages in the Torah is "going astray", but if one attempts to justify the passages and succeeds, then the accusation of immorality is even further unjstified, as the passages are shown to not be immoral. This is an appeal to common sense. This also essentially means that one who defends anything that anyone else arbitrarily deems immoral has "gone astray." Claim that it is "common sense" that something is immoral, and stop anyone before they even begin the justification. I can say that opening an organization to help cancer patients is immoral, and then when one is about to defend its morality, I can just say that it's "obvious" and "common sense" that it's immoral. There is also an implicit assumption that it is impossible to justify the supposed immorality in the Torah. This is clearly false, as shown in this article.
Many minutes later in the video, after a long period of relatively reasonable statements, he says something quite bizzare: the Torah commands us to not make images of false gods, angels, etc., but it also has a command to make images of cheruvim on the ark's cover. Somehow he takes issue with this exception to a rule, even though I imagine he believes that murder is bad, but killing in self-defense is permissible.
Proper Torah-observant Jews (and Noachides) do not choose which Torah passages to observe, despite what he says, though I suppose he is referring to Christians, who do arbitrarily pick which laws to follow.
Finally, the description of the video contains a list of 24 Torah passages (excluding New Testament passages), all of which are supposedly immoral. If the video itself isn't a Gish Gallop, the description certainly is!
What a surprise; QualiaSoup is completely incompetent in Torah subjects! [Likely incomplete list of] fallacies used: Gish Gallop, False Analogies, Strawman [of G-d], Argument from Incredulity (regarding the morality of the passages presented), Appeal to Emotion [in paragraph nine, where he uses fear to prevent people from justifying the Torah's morality], Appeal to Common Sense, and Non-Sequitur (the section in which he implicitly states that the Torah is immoral because it contains an exception to a rule). Wow! You'd expect a channel focused on rationality cap its fallacy count at zero, but those were at least seven fallacies, some used many, many times! Anyway, may Hashem bless you!