The Ontological argument for Gods existence

Excellent. Now to conclude the debate. In his last round, pro concentrates on three key contentions, two of which are totally new (and as such, under his own rules, he forfeits, but I'm going to argue them anyway). Note also that my opponent has dropped about half of his arguments by now. 1) My arguments only prove the notion of God 2) What if we're wrong about God being perfect (NEW! ) 3) Perfection might not exist (NEW! ) ARGUMENT 1 My opponent extends his case under point one in two ways - first by applying it to the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and then by saying "The conception of God being perfect doesn't prove that your other conception of God (only existing as a concept) is false. " The Invisible Pink Unicorn is, like the flying spaghetti monster, not perfect, and therefore this argument cannot apply to it. He does a similar thing later with what he terms "blah blah blah. " If blah blah blah is perfect, then it is the same as God. Secondly, yes it does prove it! If the God I had a conception of was perfect, it exists beyond the conception. If it were not perfect, it would not be God. My argument therefore proves that the perfect God both my opponent and I concieve cannot be merely a mental phenomenon. If you're following my opponent's reasoning, there is a missing step 3.5 - if something exists, it is not merely a notion. I said this in round three. Therefore there is no non-sequiter. ARGUMENT 2 Simply put, you told me to provide an ontological argument for why a being you describe as perfect exists. I have proven that the being you describe exists. It was never my burden of proof to prove perfection exists, because you said it does in round one. My burden of proof is to show why a perfect being exists, as you established in round one: God = "Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover" <- all attributes that could only be true of a PERFECT entity, as I have shown "My opponent as the Pro will seek to show that their ontological argument for the existence of God [perfect entity] should be accepted. " ARGUMENT 3 Let us assume God is not perfect (as perfection does not exist), but omnipotent (which it has to be because you said God was). How is God then not perfect? Of course if one is omnipotent one has value (an argument I made last round), and since the God you conceive of has infinite value, it must have more value than your conception allows, meaning it must exist beyond your conception, as otherwise the value would be finite. It is impossible for your conception to be omnipotent but not perfect. I would like readers to note that the previous two (new) arguments are blaming me for accepting his definitions. Yes, I am taking for granted that God is perfect, and using that to show God is real. The only reason why I'm doing that, however, is because your definition of God was equivalent to perfect, and you haven't engaged with that point. SUMMARY In this debate, my opponent has offered six distinct arguments (two from the last round). His burden of proof was to show that any one of these destroys my argument. Three of them he has dropped by the final round, so clearly they didn't destroy my argument. Two of them are new arguments in round four, and amount to nothing more than an attack on his own definitions. The remaining argument he has been reiterating through all three rounds of engagement, without really responding to my counter-arguments. I have shown that since we have a conception of a perfect entity, the entity we conceive of exists. Otherwise we would not have a conception of a perfect entity, for what is perfect must exist.