Evil proves God does not exist

I gave a clear reason why evil was allowed, Pro was not able to refute that. Pro says "A morally good being should, by definition, desire to prevent evil. If he chooses to prioritize some other goal over the prevention of evil, then he is not morally good." There is no argument here only an assertion that about what should and shouldn't be a priority. "If God is all powerful, all knowing, and has our best interests in mind, then why should he allow anyone to go against His way, as my opponent puts it There is no justification for this?" I clearly gave a reason in my previous argument, which you have not refuted. Pro says "It is counterintuitive to create a world with the potential for evil if you do not desire for evil to exist." Its counterintuitive to create a world where evil can't be chosen and exist if you want free will to exist. Pro says "There is indeed no reason whatsoever why God would choose to create World 2, yet World 2 is clearly the one we live in. If Con believes that there is such a reason, he should propose it." Your kidding right, I gave a free will defense, and you say I didn't provide a reason for world 2 ? Lets go back to the 2 worlds......... World 1) No capacity to do evil is given, thus evil does not exist World 2) Capacity to do evil is given, thus evil exists Is it possible that God would want free will to exist ?, I would say yes. Has my opponent shown that it would be impossible for God to not want free will to exist ? (Unless you count assertions about how God would never want free will to exist, then no Pro has not shown this as impossible) Pro says "Simply pointing out that my claims make some assumptions does not constitute an argument unless there is some suggestion of why those assumptions are wrong or some counterexamples based on better assumptions is provided." I gave the counter example of evil existing out of free will existing. Pro says "A morally perfect being does not prioritize any other interests over the well being of conscious beings. To do so would be directly contradictory to the definition of morality" And what definition of morality are you referring too ? Pro says "I am not sure whether my opponent is disputing my definition of evil or simply my reason for positing it" I am not disputing your definition of evil. I asked........ "Pro regards unnecessary suffering as evil. But no what basis does he make this claim ? Is unnecessary suffering evil just because you don't like it, or is their an independent moral standard that says unnecessary suffering is evil ?" Pro says "If excessive and unnecessary suffering is not evil then I do not understand what evil is" Yeah but why is it evil ? without any reason, this is just an appeal to emotion. What is the intellectual/moral/rational justification for this moral claim. Now if their is no objective morality, then God or anything else, can't be morally objectivity wrong, but if God can't be objectively morally wrong, then their is no moral objection to Gods existence based on evil existing. Lets go back to Pros original argument.......... 1. Evil exists. 2. If the God of Theism existed, he would not allow evil to exist. 3. Therefore, the God of Theism does not exist. Premise 2 states, that God would not allow evil to exist, is that because God would be under a moral duty not to allow evil to exist ?. And if so what is the basis of this moral duty ? My argument is as follows 1) God exists 2) Free will exists 3) There fore evil can exist 4) Therefore God and evil existing are not mutually exclusive I look forward to Pros' reply.