The argument from evil (AE) is sound

DefinitionsGod - By God, I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good, personal being who created the universe, and is (to a greater or lesser extent) active within the universe.Evil - Anything which in and of itself, rational creatures would universally seek to avoid, ceteris paribus. Examples of such things include suffering, pain, disability and death.The argument will try to show that at least some of these evils are gratuitous (not logically necessary for an adequately compensatory good), and this will be (I suspect) the main contention in the debate.IntroductionI want to thank Reason Alliance (Con) for agreeing to debate me again, this time in a situation where I have the opportunity to present the affirmative case. We will be discussing what I take to be the best and most interesting argument in the philosophy of religion - the argument from evil. It is an issue I am sure we have all pondered at one time or another, even if not perhaps in philosophical terms, so I hope this debate will appeal to even those among us who maybe don’t regard philosophy as a primary area of interest. As this round is merely for preliminaries and acceptance only, I want to set the stage by covering some pre-debate nomenclature.Burden of proof and debate rulesAs the affirmative party, the burden of proof will be on me to show that the argument can be justified. I will need to show that each premise is probably true, if I am to carry the resolution.I would simply point out to Con and to the readers that while I undoubtedly start with the BoP, once I do present justification for the argument, the task for Con will be to show that my reasoning is deficient in some way. As such, the BoP is dynamic rather than static, but I will of course be tasked with setting the ball rolling. Any arguments dropped will result in a conduct violation. Numerous such offences will result in a forfeit.Lastly, I would ask Con not to make any arguments in R1. The first round is merely for is for preliminary purposes only. With that in mind, all that’s left is to introduce the version of the argument I will be defending.WSA evidential PoE (1)The argument I will defend in this debate will be as follows:(P1) If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.(P2) There is lots of evil in the world.(P3) Much of that evil is not logically necessary for any adequately compensating good.(C) Therefore, there is no God who is all powerful and all good.In the main, I will refer primarily to pain and suffering as the evil most pressing in my mind, but this argument as not limited to them, as my definition suggests. In the course of my second round, I will hope to justify each step above, and thus the conclusion. Lastly, I would simply request that Con (eventually) engage with the points I make in the debate. Although I understand if he wants to solely concentrate on a generic case against the argument in R2 (after all, this practise is standard), I do think we owe it to the readers to with engage each other directly. With this in mind, I look forward to a great debate, and providing an insightful exchange of ideas on a very interesting and distinguished topic.Sources1. God? Debate between a Christian and an Atheist, William lane Craig and Walter Sinnott Armstrong, 2004, Oxford University Press, p84.