Freewill defense against the problem problem evil: God lets humans do evil things because he respects their freedom. Firstly, why is freedom so important it overrides all other moral considerations for God? I agree that a world where everyone is an automaton wouldn't have genuine goods; but I'm asking why freedom should override everything in all circunstances. A parent respects his child's autonomy, but still doesn't let him harm himself, because there are other important considerations in other contexts.
Secondly, suppose a reason was given to the first question. Aren't there cases in the history of humanity where, if God respected the freedom of the evil doers (the freedom of abusers, prosecuters, assassins, genociders, etc), he would have let the freedom of the victims be disrespected? In those cases, he isn't being neutral, he's actively choosing to respect one side and withdrawing from the other. If someone looked at the holocaust and said "God respects the freedom of humans to do evil things", I would ask "what about the freedom of the children to grow up, of people to practice their religion without persecution, of parents to see their children in their last moments, of families to be united?".
I'm focusing on the freewill defense for those cases of extreme suffering, because I think other defenses (like soul-making or "suffering for greater good") fail more explicitly on those cases. The people who died on the holocaust, for example, didn't have any growth coming from their suffering, nor did it lead to any greater good. The problem is not just the amount of suffering, but also its apparent arbitrariness and indifference (it doesn't matter if you prayed or not, if you had faith or not, if you had loved ones or not, if you did wrong things or not, if you were children or old, everyone died)