The ontological arguments justify a belief in God

I don't particularily mind Con's extremely short responses, however, the effort each side puts into their posts will have a say when it comes down to it.To start, I will continue my deconstruction of the Negative case by further addressing Con's one and only argument. I might add that it would have been wise for Con to have played more than what he did with all his character space just to be safe, as at this current moment, his position is far from safe.Argument from subjective standard:To demonstrate why Con's argument is completely ludicrious, it is equal to asking: 'Are flowers flowers because they are flowers? Or are they flowers because God said they were fowers?' In this case, Con has produced an either/or fallacy by stating that one is true, or the other is true. But when one has a good think about this situation, it becomes evident that there are more than 2 options. Is something great because God said it was great? Or because it is great on its own? Both can be true, and both can be false at the same time. In response to what I just said, I am pretty certain that Con is going to jump up and say, 'No! thats not possible! you cannot have a subjective scale of greatness and an objective scale at the same time!' Which is where my previous rounds rebuttal kicks in. There is no such thing as scales of greatness. To recall my argument, what exactly is greatness? Its simply a comparison between the traits of two or more beings to determine which has more qualitative and quantitative desirable traits. When you put qualitative and quantitative together, you get magnitude, God's traits are infinite in magnitude and thus since nothing surpasses infinity, there is nothing greater than God. I will restate my argument with this refined definition of greatest: Our understanding of God is a being than which no being with more qualitative and quantitative traits can be conceived. The idea of God exists in the mind. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality has more qualitative/quantitative traits than a being that exists only in the mind. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a being with more qualitative/quantitative traits —that which exists in reality. We cannot be imagining something that more Q/Q traits than a being with Infinite Q/Q traits. Therefore, a being with infinite Q/Q traits exists. (God) Note a single sentence that underpins most of Con's Round 3 address: "Pro says God is great because he has the most qualitative traits and quantitative traits. I don't see how more of something is better." So whose being subjective now? The fallcy in this sentence is where Pro equivilates the word 'better' with 'greatest.' They are not nessecarily more desirable, they simply have more of the traits the we associate with the definition of God. An example of a qualitative trait is omnipotence, of this, the magnitude that this represents is infinity, regardless of scale. Of numerical qualities, omnipresence would fit this category, how many possible worlds does God exist in? If He has nessecary existence ie. Omnipresence, then he exists in every possible world. The magnitude of this is also infinity regardless of scale.So this is what the greatest possible being is. I also thought up another way of refuting this argument. Lets pretend that Con is correct in thinking that there are standards of greatness. Now lest assume they are subjective. Try and visulise such a scale as a scale of greatness from 1-10. God is infinite, 10 so nothing can be greater than him. While the size of everyonese scales may differ, some people may have scales that go from 1-5 instead, but all are similar in that all scales recognise that nothing is bigger than the biggest number of that scale. And since the ontological argument states in premise 1: 'God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.' Such a scale if it exists, would work to prove God and to prove the ontological argument, not support Con's case. Godel's formal proof:Con rejects the argument from Godel based on his assumptions that:a) Anything God-like is God, and God is only allowed to be defined as the greatest possible being, tri-omni creator of the universe.b) Rule 6 says what he thinks it says.To clarify: 6) No redefining the defintions set, any clarifications must be sent in pm to me before the debate, clarifications may be made during the debate with consent if absolutely necessary.This rule is purely for pre-debate organisation, I do not believe it is possible for me to consent with myself as to whether I can clarify or add more definitions for God. What it means is that if Con sees the debate while in challenge period, and would like to clarify definitions during the debate, he can get permission from me to clarify to his heart's content. This rule is binding to me as well. I am not allowed to redefine definitions set in round 1, I am only allowed to clarify, and since I don't need to ask myself for permission, I can clarify the definitions I set wherever I see nessecary. By adding more definitions to God, i am further refining and clarifying the definition of God that I am attempting to prove, there is nothing at all wrong with me making extra definitions.However, please note that I have not made extra definitions, it's all in Con's head. What Godel's argument attempts to prove is that there is an entity x that exist, and x has God-like properties. Con's argument does not disprove this argument, if we were to assume his debunked argument was correct, then x is still tri-omni, and that is enough to affirm the resolution once and for all. This is round 4, no new material and thus this argument likewise succeeds. But it gets even better, the temporal modal logic ontological argument for God (TMLOAG) doesn't use the defintiion of God being the greatest being either. It simply states that there exists something which exhibits the qualities of the God that we are debating. Tri-omni, and all the other qualities associated with our concept of the greatest possible being, including transcendence, and other Jeudo-christian concepts which are allowed by the current definition of greatest.Conclusion: I would have liked to see more material by Con, more arguments, more counter-argumetns, better defense etc. But what I saw here was at least satisfactory. In light of 2 of my arguments standing untouched, 2 of my arguments unrefuted and Cons single argument case completely dismantled, I would consider this a Pro win.Thank you for the debate Con.