GodSand's "proof" of God is not logically valid

I have been as patient with my opponent as possible and am glad to finally end this debate. It is regretful that my opponent cannot grasp such a famous and well taught principle that is featured in almost every introductory Philosophy course in any respectable academic institution. My opponent has accused me of not understanding my own argument, when it is plain to see that this is only the result of his own inadequacies as many people understand my argument and have tried clarifying it to him: . http://www.debate.org... Both Tarzan and Toast understand this concept perfectly, and I am certain that many others do too. I will make one last-ditch effort to explain Kant's rejection of the ontological argument. My opponent says that because God is omnipotent, then he can do anything. Exist is one of those things. Thus, God must exist. The logical fallacy is that something must exist before we can say that their characteristics are possible. The characteristic of existence comes before all other characteristics. Microwaves need to be plugged in before they work. Televisions have to be turned on before you can change the channel. God must exist before he can be omnipotent, thus, you cannot say that God exists BECAUSE he is omnipotent. It is very sad that my opponent cannot grasp this concept because having a Philosophical debate with someone lacking in Philosophical ability is nearly impossible. Luckily, I do not need to teach these things to my opponent, nor do I have to go to extraordinary lengths to explain this concept in as "baby" a way possible. I need only show the audience that a common person of typical competency can grasp this principle, regardless of whether or not my opponent can. 1. Philosophy of religion By Charles Taliaferro, Paul J. Griffiths p. 277 . http://tinyurl.com... discusses how Kant's analysis effectively destroys the Ontological argument, which is essentially the same as that my opponent has provided. 2. . http://an-archos.com... Gives information about predicates and why existence cannot be considered a predicate. 3. . http://www.existence-of-god.com... Shows that objections to the Ontological argument are very easy to understand and that many people understand them, even though my opponent lacks the resources to do so himself. This site includes a rebuttal to Kant's theory, which is easily defeated with the notion that the realization of the existence of something changes individual perception and not the general concept. I include this because my opponent is known for adding extra arguments in the final round even though it is poor conduct to do so. 4. . http://www.lycos.com... Provides more information on Kant's objection to the Ontological argument. 5. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(grammar) A wikipedia definition of a predicate, in case my opponent does not understand what a predicate is. My opponent's last response was completely off-topic and dealt nothing with the resolution. It was all preaching and requests for arguments that have nothing to do with this debate. I find that my opponent's conduct has been terrible, as I have said in the resolution, in my first round, in each successive round, and many times in the comments section, as well as in the debate I started in parallel with this one, that WE ARE NOT DEBATING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. This debate is about the logical validity of GodSand's argument. However, this has been turned into a debate where I am trying to teach an alleged Philosophy student one of the most basic concepts of Philosophy and one where my opponent wishes to argue anything and everything except the resolution.