Evil proves God does not exist

What I have stated twice before, I will state again: It is impossible for God to have any reason to allow evil to exist because God is morally perfect. Morally perfect beings do not allow evil to exist simply because they have some other priorities. This is a necessary part of what it means to be morally perfect. I can think of no rational excuse for why a morally perfect, all powerful being would allow evil to exist. Simply saying that God would allow evil to exist because He wants people to have free will does not work. There has to be a reason why a morally perfect being could consider the existence of free will more important than preventing evil. I can think of no such reason, and my opponent has not offered one. This free will argument is no different than saying, "God allows evil because evil is a necessary result of wars, and God wants wars to exist." Just substitute anything that results in suffering or evil for free will and it becomes very obvious what the problem is. However innocuous it may sound, God would not allow free will because he would not allow anything that causes evil. The proof of 2b is entirely within the definition of God in Round 1. It is logically impossible that a perfectly good, all powerful being would allow evil to exist. If God allowed evil to exist, there would be a conflict between his behavior and his desires. I really don't see what's so hard to understand about this. There are numerous counterarguments against my case that I have thought of over the course of this debate (and many more that I haven't thought of), but my opponent has not made a single legitimate objection because he continues to harp on this one point, which I have addressed over and over again. I have been practically giving suggestions about what claims to object to and where it would be constructive to provide examples, and I have been ignored completely. I have had to assume nothing beyond what my opponent wrote in Round 1 (hence my failure to bring in any sources) and yet I have constantly been accused of making claims without justification. Repeated crying that statements have no been proven when they clearly logically follow from the premises is not an argument. I am sick of rambling on and on, saying the same thing over and over again in different ways, in order to try to get my opponent to understand my objection so we can advance the discussion. Con: In the next round, you must provide some reason why the God of Theism would allow evil to exist and justify it with some reason based on your statements in Round 1. Simply providing a possibility will not be enough, you must explain why that possibility is relevant and justified. You must demonstrate some flaw in my thinking or some exception that I have not thought of. Saying again that it does not logically follow will not work, because I promise you that it does logically follow based on the simple premises we have outlined. The way for theists to win this debate it to show that it is not as simple as I and other atheists have made it out to be. I am trying my best not to be rude or condescending, but I would like to advance this discussion and I am getting frustrated with my inability to get my point across. Even if you still don't think my argument logically follows from your assumptions, present some other arguments anyway. My case is really not very strong, but I assure you that voters are not going to agree with your objection that I have not explained why God would not allow evil. I gave the same argument three times (counting this round) and rather than attacking it your have denied its existence. If you still don't see what I am referring to, please carefully read my arguments in Rounds 2, 3, and 4 (especially 3) and see where I have stated the contradictions. Best of luck in the next round. I hope that the fifth and final round will be the most challenging for me.