If an omnipotent, omnicient, and omni-benevolent God can exist with evil.

First, my opponent discussed how an evidential approach to the problem of evil would lead me to concede the point. While I did not understand my opponent's argument, he stated it was irrelevant as I was not debating that view. So because this is no longer a point of contention there is no reason it should be mentioned again. Though, I would like to comment on one of my opponent's assumption. My opponent assumed that for something to be logical, it must be 100% proved. This is not quite true, as logic often is taking the place of the inability to prove something 100%. I will use my opponent's example: I can decide (given the current state of things) that a car will not be pulled out of space and land in my house once a week every week at exactly the same time. I decide this logically because, while there is still a chance it can happen, the evidence shows the probability of it happening so incredibly unlikely. So it is not necessary to 100% prove something for it to be logical. Given the previous argument and my opponent's second paragraph, I do not have to show it is logically IMPOSSIBLE, but rather that it is EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE. I understand my opponent may find this incredibly hard for me to do, but this is because of his belief on the matter. He believes the resolution true, so he sees that proving it false will be near impossible. I, on the other hand, see that this resolution is false so I believe my opponent is the one who will have difficulty proving his side. Now about my opponent's statement that it is logically possible god allows evil because he likes ducks. This is true. But the point is not that it's possible, it's that it is EXTREMELY improbable. The likely hood is SO improbable, that we can safely assume it is false. My opponent goes by the same premise as I, he must show the likely hood of this resolution being true extremely high, but not prove it with 100% deniable facts. *The Free Will Defense* My opponent states that free will is good and justified because he believes it to be so. In his mind, it is justified and obvious. This is a logical fallacy, though. Just because someone believes something to be so, does not make it true. Hitler believed that Jews had no value, and organized the killings of over 6 million of them. He BELIEVED that this was right. The problem was that he had no evidence showing that the Jews deserved this at all. My opponent makes the same mistake as Hitler, he assumes that he is right on his own beliefs, but does not incorporate general logic (that could apply to anyone) or evidence. So my opponent has an obligation to prove why free will is intrinsically good, or else we must take my reasoning as the truth. My opponent also says it is right because God could not love a 'robot'. It might be true it would be illogical to love a robot, but this does not justify how it would make God omni-benevolent. What my opponent is really saying is that God gave us free will for HIS OWN SATISFACTION. It would be good for HIM but not for US. So God could not have made free will and still be omni-benevolent. If we did not have the option to be a free person, then we would all be ignorant, but COMPLETELY HAPPY slaves. Yes, it sounds cruel, but this is only because we have experienced freedom. But if the idea of freedom never came into our minds, we would be of the utmost happy, as there would be no evil. So my opponent can't show evil can exist with God, therefore this still flows to me. My opponent says that we have the ability to see free will is moral, and that God showed us this. Well it seems I've not seen these amazing reasons for free will, so if my opponent will show them to me as to EXACTLY WHY free will is justified, I will happily agree with him. Regarding my opponent's argument regarding my cat, he says God allowing me to go back in time and see my cat is absurd. But what is so absurd about seeing my cat? What evil will this cause? And then my opponent says it's because 'IT'S NOT POSSIBLE'. So the truth comes out. Through God, it is IMPOSSIBLE to go back in time. Wait, what? God can't let me go back. It's impossible for God. Well this must mean God is NOT omnipotent. It seems my opponent can only back up his arguments for each individual attribute by violating another. In this point, my opponent justifies evil by saying God doesn't have the power to do something. [Breaking the attribute of omnipotence. ] My opponent says that I have not shown why it is impossible to show this resolution false. Yet, I have gone through and shown how in EVER SINGLE ARGUMENT my opponent is forced to violate one of the resolution's terms to make his point. Now, I am not insulting the debater, as I understand the fact that it is impossible to prove something false. I have won this round, because I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments, and have adequately disproved my opponent's ONLY point of contention against this resolution ---- free will. I thank my opponent for this most enlightening round, and I look forward to the next round. Thank you.