As an agnostic I'm not on either side of this debate therefor I won't register, but I would like to add one thing:
The opening debate introduced one constant that I believe is flawed; which is assuming
that seeing evil with the power to stop evil, is in itself evil. I'd like to cite a quick source that proposes a mental state of sadness or depression increases intellectual capacity.
This study implies negativity; ie sadness or depression (malevolence) leads to, or is even the direct causal reason for, progress and inspiration which is inarguably benevolent.
I feel this will be retorted by the famous line:
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’
But I'd like to counter that with this from the standard American bible:
Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.
This seems to imply god wants us to suffer because of others, but to not retaliate, but instead learn, which goes hand in hand with the previously cited article.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent." This is the line in question because it's assuming a constant I disagree with. God can be able to prevent evil but unwilling, without being malevolent, for other reasons.