The Modal Ontological Argument for God's existence is logically valid

This is going to be short and sweet.A famous "proof" that 1 equals 2 This has nothing to do with the ontological argument, so my opponent wasted his time with this. Now..."According to that argument, god exists in all possible worlds. But "all possible worlds" includes many godless worlds. He is saying that god exists even in worlds without gods. That's nonsense. It's contradiction. It is no part of a valid argument. Pro's argument is not valid. The resolution is refuted." Like I said in the first round, all these objections are based on misunderstandings. If the first premise of the Ontological Argument is true, then a maximally great being exists necessarily. Thus, to say that that there are possible "Godless" worlds would be a contradiction. If a being is necessary, then there are necessarily no possible worlds where God doesn't exist. Thus, if we assume the first premise of the Ontological Argument, the idea of a possible "Godless" world is a contradiction (If something is necessary, then there are no possible world where this being doesn't exist). So my opponent's argument fails, because if a maximally great being exists this being is necessary, thus the idea of possible "Godless" worlds is a logical contradiction contrary to what my opponent states.Second RefutationThe first part of this is just regarding the possible "Godless" worlds (which I debunked already). "God's "greatness" is undefined confusion. Pro defines "great" as, "Of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average." Can god be great in both tallness or shortness? Can he be greatest in both justice and mercy? No, these are obvious contradictions. Arguments based on god's "greatness" are subjective and whimsical." A maximally great being would have all great making properties that don't contradict each other. There is no contradiction in a maximally great being existing in every possible world if he existed in one, in fact this is necessary if he is maximally great! Thus, if you find two properties that contradict each other, this only means you throw out one of the properties, not the idea of a maximally great being all together. Thus, to accept the possibility of a maximally great being, leads to the conclusion of God's existence because it is the existence of a necessary being. "If god doesn't exist in godless worlds, then there's no proof that he exists in this one. If we don’t take god's maximal greatness to be perfect greatness, then there is no valid way to reach Pro's conclusion that god exists. And if we do take "maximal" to mean "maximum" then we have the contradiction of god existing in godless worlds." As I already explained, if the first premise of the ontological argument is true, there are no Godless worlds. It's a logically contradiction to claim that something necessary, could possibly not exist. Thus my opponent's whole case fails. "Pro is reduced to this: Of worlds consisting of only one smidgeon of grit, he must say that the gritis a maximally great god. That's nonsense. And nonsense is no part of a valid argument."Huh? The only argument that is nonsense is this argument lolConclusion I didn't take much time on this because Con's arguments are so terrible, and my case is clear. There are no possible Godless worlds because God is necessary if you accept the first premise of the Ontological Argument (which Con agreed was the case for this debate). There are no problems with the ontological argument if you accept the first premise, except for the imaginary problems made up by Con that don't even exist and aren't acknowledged in the academic world. I showed the simple logic of the Ontological Argument in the first round, and all of Con's objections were based on misunderstandings of the argument. Thus, the resolution has been affirmed.