As stated, I am talking about "the existence of God(s)".

The debate description merely gets specific ON SOME POINTS that will be brought up during debate.

Even so, it all doesn't matter. Unless you understand a religion up to a point where others will believe that YOU believe in it (when describing it), you will not be able to debunk a religion.

Right, but don't you think that when discussing god you should frame it within the debate topic?

The question is "Is the problem of Evil a coherent argument against the existence of God(s)".

This does not say anything about a merciful or caring God. Merely the existence of a deity.

Right, but it follows with:

In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to explain evil if there exists a deity that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient (see theism).

First of all, ya morons, if we were debating on God's existence, we would have to accept that if he did exist, we would NOT understand his true intentions. We're human beings that are limited by the physical realm. God is supposed to be supernatural and powerful and shit. So saying "if God does exist, he's an asshole for letting evil happen" is admitting that you're an ignorant fool who isn't serious about reasoning.

You missed the underlying point. If a god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, then evil cannot exist. It's a matter of logic. The converse is true: if evil exist, said god could not exist.

Your debate is merely a tautology disguised through synonym.

You may as well have stated "Effectiveness consists merely of that which is capable."