Evil proves God does not exist

Thanks to my opponent for his continued prompt responses. While he has made some good points, I think he may have misunderstood my argument. I will try to clarify my point to him and voters since he did not seem to understand how my comments constitute a counterargument and thus inadvertently failed to address them. If God is morally perfect, then preventing evil should be his top priority. This is not a random assertion; the desire to prevent evil is by definition inextricable from moral goodness. If a morally good being is not defined as a being that wishes to promote good and prevent evil, then what is a morally good being? My opponent gave a definition of what God is, and I am simply arguing that he should behave according to that definition. If God has the ability to prevent evil and he chooses not to do so, he is not morally good and thus fails to meet the standards of the definition that was laid out in Round 1. The fact that evil is a necessary consequence of free will is not a justification for why evil exists. I explained why this is so in the previous round, but my opponent either did not read it or (more likely) did not understand what I meant. I will try to be as clear as possible: There is no reason why the God described in Round 1 would choose to allow evil to exist for the sake of allowing free will. Nothing about Him, as my opponent described Him, suggests that he should have any reason to favor free will over the prevention of evil. Indeed, a morally good being should not choose anything over the prevention of evil because preventing evil and promoting good should, by definition, be the primary goals of a morally good being. I asked my opponent why God would value free will over the prevention of evil if he is morally perfect, but this question has gone unanswered. Simple asserting that God wants free will is not enough, because based on the definition of Him there is no reason to suggest He does, and even if He did He would have other priorities (preventing evil). I feel that I have repeated myself enough, and I don't see how I could be any more clear about what I mean to say here. My opponent goes on to challenge my standards of morality, by I think almost all of his objections are beside the point. We have both already agreed that evil exists. I can just throw out my definition of evil entirely for all it matters, because my opponent has already conceded that there is some evil. The question of whether there is moral objectivity is a complete red herring; my opponent is asking me to prove one of his own assumptions as though this is detrimental to my argument. We both agree that evil exists, so unless the exact nature of evil is relevant to the debate it doesn't matter what our respective definitions are. If there is no objective morality, than what form of morality is my opponent proposing? It does not particularly matter to me, because even if evil is subjective it still exists. My opponent seems to be implying some form of moral nihilism, but this is incompatible with both the assumption that if He exists God is morally good and that evil exists (both of which are premises that were proposed by my opponent and which I agreed to in Round 1). There need be no exact standards of morality or moral duty of any kind for the purpose of this debate. Evil exists and if He exist then God is good, so if God exists he should want to prevent evil (whether he is obligated to or not) and anything he wants to do is done (since he is omnipotent). Thus, evil (whatever it is) should not exist. However, it does exist (something we have explicitly agreed). This should be sufficient to prove that God does not exist. There is very little for me to assert in this debate, really. My opponent's premises are enough to prove the point I am making. His "counterarguments" are not much more than simple misunderstandings of what I have said or obvious failures of logic. Contrary to what he has said, my arguments are fully justified because they are based off of his own assumptions. I have made the same argument three times now, and I worry that he will again ignore or not understand what I have said and restate the same point again. I am aware that there is a free will counterargument, but under the premises outlined in this debate it is doomed to fail unless it can be explained why a morally perfect God would consider free will more important than preventing evil. My opponent cannot simply say that it is possible that this is true, because under his definition of God it is not. There are numerous other problems, such as whether free will does in fact exist and whether it is compatible with an omniscient God, but I see no reason to even begin to assess these problems until my opponent has explained why a morally perfect God would allow free will to exist if that would result in evil. I doubt that there is any defense for this problem at all. A morally perfect being would not allow evil to exist if it could prevent it. The justification for this claim is contained entirely in the definitions of what moral perfection and evil mean. My opponent's attempts at watering down the definitions of good and evil to meaninglessness through moral skepticism are useless because he has already conceded that some form of good and evil exist. I would also like to address my opponent's new syllogism. The exact consequences of his assertion that God exists as a premise of his argument are boggling my mind a bit. I am making an argument from evil against God's existence. How can he presuppose that God exists as an essential part of his argument against my argument against the existence of God? To do this seems to be begging the question, in an extremely roundabout way. All in all, my opponent's arguments seem to be comprised of thinly veiled attempts to presuppose his conclusion and ignore the ramifications of his own statements through excessive and irrelevant skepticism. I have enough trouble comprehending his writing to begin with without having to work through all the distractions that have been embedded in his arguments. What my opponent wrote in the previous round can best be described as something that closely resembles an argument on the outside but is in fact hollow and empty. The main challenge to me in this debate has been understanding his garbled writing and attempting to get him to understand and address my statements. This has been an extremely frustrating exercise, and one that I hope is not completely futile. Virtually nothing was said in the previous round that compromises my case at all. I look forward to not having to write another twelve hundred words of the same thing again in order to get my point across.