That the Descartes Ontological argument is sound

In fact, my conclusion is God must exist"I refer Pro to round 1 where their argument is. .. .. .. .. .. .. "P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not existC: Therefore such a being must exist"3. Perfection is subjectivePro says "My opponent claims that everyone has their own view of perfection. That's a very curious claim. The only way one can read it is that different people have different ideas of what omnipotence, omniscience and so forth are. There are "lots of little perfections running around" because there are lots of kinds of omnipotence etc. Oh really? Name two"How about three ? Between people of different faiths, or indeed between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:1. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.2. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i. e. , pure agency or negative omnipotence.3. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie). [1]This refutes Pro claim that "In summary, there is nothing subjective about omnipotence, omniscience, or omni-anything,"2. Argument also proves other perfect thingsPro says "This is the flaw in my opponent's argument, that only God has the capability to be perfect because God is undefined. "Pro says "The real underlying question, I think, is how we can know that God must be perfect without reference to the definition. Well, what am I out to prove? That God exists. What is God? Initially my opponent gave me a list of God's attributes from which one could induce the property of perfection. I think that in common speech, when we say "God" perfection is at least implied, and the dictionaries are on my side"The reference to these attributes is a definition. Also defining God as that which is undefined is self refuting, cause the claim that God is undefined is a definition of God as something undefined. This refutes Pro claims about God being undefined1. Perfection as a direction vs Perfection as an attributePro says "when I refer to an "attribute" I refer to anything that can be attributed to an object. Therefore it is not an object by itself, but rather a quality of one or more objects. When I refer to a "direction" I refer to anything that one can be more of. For instance, furry is an attribute, and furriness is a direction. When talking about fur applied to an object, whether you are referring to the "attribute" of having fur or the "direction" of the fur quantity, depends on context"In order for the direction of perfection to exist (like furriness) there needs to be an object that has the attribute of perfection (like there is an object that has the attribute of fur, for example a dog). As Pro has said " perfection cannot exist without an object as it is only a direction " [2]But this is impossible, because according to Pro "Perfection is never an attribute"This refutes any object having the attribute of perfection thus perfection as a direction can't exist.1) Direction of perfection can only exist if there is an object with perfection (Claimed by Pro)2) Perfection is never an attribute (Claimed by Pro)3) Thus there is no "object" that has the attribute of perfectionC) The direction of perfection can't existAs there is no object with perfection and there is no direction of perfection this refutes the claim "C: Therefore such a being must exist"I thank Pro for debating me once again on this topic. I ask the Vote go to the Con. Sources[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] This debate Round 2, Under the heading 5. Concepts vs Actuality