Thank you for the advice, I am often debating on mobile, I do stress spacing. I shall try to add titles but please be patient with some limitations. I do try to make my arguments clear.
It is my understanding of the debate structure that R1 is opening arguments. My first round was not in any way a rebuttal as I tried to make it an independent opening argument, leaving rebuttals to this round. Please correct me if I misunderstood.
1. free will = moral evil
what is this "some free will?" and will these restrictions render free will pointless?
2. Most certainly, to the *individual* afflicted with cancers such as leukemia, and those around them, it is a tragedy that defies a sensible creator. Cancer is a consequence of cell division. Cell division is at the heart of biology and evolution. It is necessary for the function of the world. My argument that the numbers of afflicted are miniscule. In any situation you could say "why not better" or "why not worse." Some damage was unavoidable, The damage appears to have been kept to an extreme minimum.
Sickle cell is an adaptation which prevents malaria infection. It is a manageable condition, its main concern was racism of medical institutions that thought people were faking the pain and not providing proper treatment.
Some pain killers, IV fluids, and Supplemental oxygen help return the cells back to their proper shape preventing further damage. I suspect asthma and a diet primarily with sugary drinks are hurting the oxygen/fluid balance, both mostly unnatural.
3. The last paragraph said that many norms were forced on people via strongmen at the dawn of civilization. strongmen who tended to be violent, greedy, and ambitious. Those qualities do not necessarily represent humanity, even today in a culture that worships money many above a certain minimum are content living a moderate life. The violent history that was moral evil was not a necessity, but a result of our choices / inaction.
My opponents "some free will" solution sounds more like the existence of a pet, without choice. Solving all our woes through magic with inexplicable methodologies leaving no purpose to research, discovery, or innovation. just passive existence. The suffering may be less to nonexistent, but it hardly sounds "good." The rarity of such defects speaks to a world that may be as good as it could get, while maintaining our independence. The theodicies clearly succeed.
P1 is an assumption that is not true by default, as demonstrated in my opening statement.
P2 most certainly.
C1 without P1, C1 does not follow.
A. MORAL EVILS
What did you want, god to physically step in and kill hitler? All of your solutions suggest a direct intervention. "Where was god?"
Perhaps non intervention is the overall best strategy, it was a human evil, and humanity, eventually stopped it. How low of a bar should we set for divine intervention? British non intervention in the potato famine? second industrial revolution? great depression? Unfortunate as it may be, proper creation followed by non intervention may be the best strategy. Furthermore, most versions of god state that he is beyond time, meaning hes already seen, planned for, and modified all of time to its optimum. overall humanity has steadily progressed to better social norms, improved morals, and expanded fundamental rights with time. It is good.
B. NATURAL EVILS
This (genetic disorders / cancers) was addressed in my opening statement and defense, those points were not themselves addressed.
By all means, come up with a better design. Your early solution of "some free will" requires elaboration and doesn't sound particularly functional.
Sorry for minimal sources, as far as I can tell these are all philosophical arguments based off common knowledge. Happy to elaborate and cite any questionable claims.