Evil proves God does not exist (6)

Opening Statements of the Third RoundI again, out of both etiquette and respect for my opponent, thank Con for his reply. I am slightly disappointed that the debate did not cover a wider range of all the historical arguments for and against the problem of evil but will note that this debate has still been a pleasurable experience. Round Three Arguments & RebuttalsI first would like to explicitly state that I do indeed dispute Cons claim that there is a possibility of God to have a moral reason to allow evil to exist. I believed I had made it clear implicitly that I was disputing Cons claim when I made attacks on it but I state the above simply for clarity. I do note that saying I dispute a claim is not the same as presenting an argument against that claim. My argument was subtle but stated the Cons rebuttal had no validation--no basis for it. Please let the audience note that my argument was a defense to my first round contentions. In other words a deconstructive argument against a rebuttal. My purpose was not to further improve my position of the resolution, but to refute my opponents attack on my position. I will expand in the following paragraph. I considered creating a new constructive argument for my round two response but decided against it on the grounds that I had properly shot down my opponents counter point and therefore my previous (Round 1) constructive arguments still stood while my opponent was left with no constructive arguments himself. In round one I had argued that God had the means and will to prevent the existence of evil. Evil exists so therefore God does not. This is evil proving the non-existence of God, which is the resolution. My opponents counter point was that God possibly does not have the will to prevent evil because of a supposed possibility of a moral reason for immorality. My opponents rebuttal has no reasoning behind it. The possibility of a moral reason to allow evil would indeed dispute a key point in my main argument, but Con has no evidence or logic in support of this proposition. He has merely stated it, which does not make it true. Con claims that I have made an argument from ignorance but I contend that it is actually my opponent who has made the logical fallacy. My opponents Round 2 rebuttal is based off ignorance. When asked for evidence of his rebuttal Con states "I don't have one, I plead ignorance"--because your rebuttal has not been proven false does not constitute evidence to prove it correct. When I state that my opponent has no evidence for his claim (besides apparently ignorance) I am accused of: building a new argument to prove the resolution on the fact that my opponent does not have evidence, when this is clearly not the case. My opponent not having evidence for the claim should be self-evident; it is not an argument, it is simply me pointing out Con has no argument. Now my opponent tries to frame his rebuttal as a new constructive argument. My premises have all been based on the definitions the instigator of the debate presented (Con) except for the premise evil does exist which my opponent has already accepted. God is morally good (from the definition of God) so therefore he has the will to prevent the morally bad (or immorality). My opponents premise is God might have a moral reason to not prevent immoral and is based off of ignorance. Take note that God therefore has the will to prevent immorality is not a new argument but merely the definition. If it pleases my opponent my argument against the first premise of my opponents previous argument is that it conflicts with the definition itself. I hope there will be no more dispute on whether there is an argument against that premise.