Evil Proves The Existance of An Evil God

Thankfully, my opponent has remarked another aspect and has tried to give an all new arena to the debate. Particularly, here he has committed a blunder, I must admit. My voters will obviously become intrigued by the way the debate has taken form. Well, I certainly did not expect such an answer from my experienced opponent. You all might have noticed that in the very first round of this debate, my opponent had very emphatically pressed on the point that con should necessarily take on the atheist standpoint and now he says that " By definition an atheist does NOT believe that "God is good" nor does an atheist believe that "God is evil" or that "God is somewhat, somewhat evil". An atheist believes that there is NO God, which would still contradict the premise of this debate "Evil Proves the Existence of an Evil God"."So what he means to say is that I should take on the 'atheist' point of view ie. just as an atheist does not believe in god, even I should assume to have a 'NO' god standpoint and then contrast the fact 'Evil Proves The Existence of An Evil God'. But if according to me there is practically no god, then how can my opponent remark that god is evil or divine?Well, once again I have proved that my opponent is in a dilemma and has totally a dual minded aspect.Ah, and my dear opponent has very rigidly commented"Since Con has broken the rules I win, hands down unless Con wants to change course and start arguing from an atheist standpoint."But oh, and that's what I should say at this point since being an atheist or a theist doesn't make any difference here, because I haven't violated the rules of the debate till now. Whatever I have said till now is true for both atheist and the theist side."To spell it out for you an atheist arguing against the contention that "Evil Proves the Existence of an Evil God" would be trying to show that the amount of evil in the world is possible without intervention from an all-powerful being(a God) to cause the evil."Strawman. How can you say so? Well, I must say that what pro stresses upon here, will lead to an argument about the existence of god, whether or not god exists. But I will state what I should actually say here. As per the topic I should be saying that 'God exists, but is no evil' unlike what my opponent tries to state.Proceeding on to the rebuttal round:i) As for your first question I must say, you definitely look a scientist, and now since you are an ardent follower of science, you yourself must be knowing about the creation and recreation of generations and generations together. You talk about genetic mutations but have you lost your knowledge about the splitting of chromosomes, cytoplasm and passing of genes from one generation to the other. You have lost the knowledge of cell and nucleus division! So does god have any role to play in this process? I believe that its only the internal of a human which gives birth to the next generation. So how can you blame god for this process?ii)" "unchanged effect in DNA overtime." Con offers up no evidence that DNA has never changed."Here my opponent says (In round I): "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."Have you provided any evidence for the statement you have just made?So now after my explanation, I have eased my voters for the right decision making.I would earnestly wait for pro's response soon.