Evil Proves The Existance of An Evil God

"Because, the entire point of this debate is that I am trying to prove that "evil" or more specifically "The amount of evil in the world" is actually proof of God's existence because without God (which by definition is an all-powerful being, perhaps you are stuck thinking only of the Christian God, the word "God" does NOT imply any particular religion's deity) intervening there would not be as much evil in the world."I feel my opponent is mistaken here. First of all, that's absolutely not the answer to my question? Perhaps he hasn't understood my question. My question actually was that, if he says in round I, that Con must argue from an atheist point of view (ATHEIST meaning THE ONE WHO FOLLOWS NO GOD), then how can he align himself against the fact that god is evil? And yes, as rightly pointed out by my opponent that god doesn't necessarily mean a religious deity, it means 'a supernatural power'. The second thing I would like to point out here is somewhat even more disastrous to my opponent. I know that my opponent would refute to the fact if I don't provide an evidence for it. So here I will make it a bit more clear so that it makes it easy for my opponent to comprehend it."So it goes like this.... "There are a number of other things which would've been beneficial had we developed genetic mutations to avoid, such as rape and suicide. Suicide is particularly difficult to understand, since the individual is directly acting against their own survival, the individual selecting against him/herself! Since all human behavior boils down to neurobiology unless there is some sort of supernatural intervention it is possible for genes to emerge that would stop these sorts of behaviors, but it didn't happen. There can be only one explanation for why natural selection did not eliminate these things from our DNA.God. There must be an all-powerful evil deity who continuously intervenes to prevent these sorts of beneficial mutations that would've otherwise occured due to natural selection. Nature alone can not account for all the evil in the world."Well, this is exactly what my opponent said in the first round of my debate, to give a detailed account of the same. His scientific skills are heightened by the same. He feels sure of his knowledge about sciences. But I thought he would realise his mistake and would retreat. But, he didn't. He says that, had god intervened in genetic mutations and developed an inherent revulsion in the humans to murder etc. we would have even developed a colony on Mars. But I would like to say that biological experiments have proved that there are two types of traits in the humans, namely 'ACQUIRED TRAITS' and 'INHERITED TRAITS'. Inherited traits are the ones which are inherited through successive generations while acquired traits are the ones that an individual acquires during his lifetime. To specify, traits like murders, rapes etc. are not inherited by us through our forefathers but are rather based on the thinking of an individual and the individual develops those traits during his lifetime. So it is just not possible to say that had god intervened in the genetic mutations there would have been no crimes.Here my opponent says,"There can be only one explanation for why natural selection did not eliminate these things from our DNA." in round I.But my dear Pro, these things (murder, rape and crimes) cannot be eliminated from our DNA because as I said that these traits are not imbibed in the DNA but rather are acquired during the lifestyle so even if god would have intervened in mutations this would not have helped. If some of my voters who are unaware of this fact or are unable to understand what I just said, please refer to the following link (http://utahscience.oremjr.alpine.k12.ut.us...).So finally the only argument made by pro is least paid heed to. "I have a funny feeling that you KNOW that was my intention and you are playing dumb because you are a self-righteous, arrogant Christian fundamentalist who feels upset and offended that anyone could suggest that "God" may be evil."Well my opponent has strictly violated the rules of a debate. He adds a dash of Ad Hominem which is strictly impertinent to the rules of a general debate. You can't make personal appeals."You somehow got that idea into your head, because you are an arrogant bible-thumper who doesn't understand anything and thinks he has the right to go in and make up his own rules over the ONE that was made in the first place. You are disappointing and frankly you make me sick."Again a bit of Ad hominem here."I'm done with this debate. I refuse to debate someone so willfully ignorant, and so arrogant as to ignore the rules. "Again a pinch of Ad hominem. It seems as though my opponent can't live without having Ad Hominems."Well, tough sh!t! I started the debate. I make the rules. You violated the ONE rule that I made. YOU LOSE!"I did not violate any rule. Well, to spell it out the rule was that I must opt for an atheist standpoint. But nowhere did I violate the rules. If I have I would humbly request my opponent to point out where I have violated the rules. After all my opponent has the capacity of copying and pasting all what I've written. He should paste the places where I've violated the rule and then I will make an attempt to justify it."What do you mean "dual-minded"? Are you trying to win this debate with gibberish? Define what you mean!"Well my opponent will often say that all what I have written is a gibberish but I say, dual-mindedness means that a person tries to prove something without actually taking on that standpoint. He wavers with his mind. For example, you say that I should assume an atheist standpoint and also say that I should debate the topic 'Evil Proves The Existance of An Evil God'. How can you assume atheist point of view and then say that god exists but is not evil?And by ardent follower of science I mean that you resort to scientific principles in every arena of your life. You follow science principles very ardently."I hope the voters are smart enough to recognize at I WIN"Yes of course. They quite clearly understand who should win and who should not.