That the Descartes Ontological argument is sound

I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for yet another opportunity to argue this fascinating argument. Descartes would be proud of this little conversation we've been having for about three debates. My apologies also for being slower than usual with putting this up - I have been remarkably busy. My opponent raises two objections: 1. My case is a non-sequiter 2. My case is does not show perfection exists He justifies this with the following argument, which he claims a superior version to mine: 1) Perfection actually exists (Insert justification here) 2) It is impossible to be perfect and not exist (Claimed by pro) C: Therefore such a being must exist The problem with this is that premise one is clearly exactly the same as the conclusion, making the argument tautological. In fact, the other side of the established dichotomy between the existence and non-existence of perfection is disproven by premise two, making premise one meaningless and pointless. Therefore I dismiss that argument. Allow me to put premise 1 rather differently to avoid this problem... 1) A perfect being does not exist 2) It is impossible to be perfect and not exist C) Therefore premise one is false Premise 1 is an assertion that my opponent is right. Given the second premise, however, my opponent cannot be right. Since there are only two alternatives - either my opponent is right or I am - a perfect being must exist. It is noteworthy to say that premise two can be worked out from reason alone, as I justified in my first debate with my opponent. First, is this a non-sequiter? Well, premise 1 and premise 2 cannot both be true. Therefore it follows that one is false. Since we can prove premise 2 but not premise 1, it follows that premise one is false. That is how the conclusion is not, in fact, a non-sequiter. If my opponent sees a hole in my causal links perhaps he would be so kind as to tell us exactly how the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Now on to the stronger contention of my opponent. My opponent claims that when I say "a perfect being does not exist" I am saying that the being does not exist but the perfection does. In fact, perfect as used here is an adjective - perfection cannot manifest without a being. Therefore the real existence of perfection is tied to the real existence of the being. When I say that I am not currently hugging the invisible pink unicorn, I am not asserting the existence of the concept of being simultaneously invisible and pink. I am asserting the non-real-existence of that concept because I am asserting the non-real-existence of the invisible pink unicorn. The invisibility and the pinkness are inextricably tied up to the unicorn, and their existence is dependent on the other. There is an assumption to this argument, which I will not deny, that God is defined as a perfect being. In saying that, I am not saying perfection or God (mutually reliant) exist. I am saying what God is with no regard for its existence. There is a difference between claim of existence and claim of attribution. Perfection, as an attribute, cannot exist in and of itself, just as "clean" cannot exist. The beauty of it all is, then, that because perfection exists a perfect being exists, since the one cannot be without the other. Blue would not exist if nothing were blue in the world - it is because there are blue things that blue exists. Perfection, however, must exist because otherwise it would not be perfection. This is because of premise two. So there is only one link to make in order to meet my opponent's criteria for "valid" - I need to prove that something perfect cannot not exist (and therefore must exist). To do that, I need to show that existence is a quality of everything that is perfect. Since perfect includes being better than everything else, existence must improve things. If existence makes something better, therefore, it must be a quality of perfection. When we say "make better" we imply that objects have value assignable on the basis of their attributes. However, in order for there to be any value assigned to an object, the object must exist. Non-existent objects have no value. Therefore perfection REQUIRES existence. Seeing as my burden of proof, to substantiate my claim, has already been met, and I have answered my opponent's two opening questions, I will allow con to continue his case.