That the Descartes Ontological argument is sound

Again I must thank con for his endless stream of objections. In this round we've seen:1. Perfection as a direction vs as an attribute2. Argument also proves other perfect things3. Perfection is subjectiveHe also restates his point about circular reasoning without engaging with any of my rebuttal. This time he says my conclusion was "Such a being must exist." In fact, my conclusion is God must exist. You also need the specific fact situation that God is perfect. You'll also note that I've also used extra logic to prove premise two, and you haven't engaged with that either. I've already explained this in great detail above, so read before you post.1. Perfection as a direction vs as an attributeSorry, probably should have talked about this earlier. For the sake of clearing this up with my opponent, 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. Perfection is never an attribute, and I made a mistake in my previous line - "As I argued in round one, perfection is an attribute" should read "As I argued in round one, perfection is a direction." I thought that would have been fairly obvious if you had read round one, but no matter. Perfection behaves just like the ultimate of anything - say infinity - in that it cannot be quantified and therefore cannot be attributed - one cannot say you are halfway to perfection, for example, as one might say your color is halfway to red on Newton's color triangle.2. Argument also proves other perfect thingsAh, the good old perfect world argument (in a past debate one of my opponents used a perfect cookie). Wouldn't it be nice?I have to admit at this point my use of the word "being" wasn't the greatest. I'm trying to find a more vague term than "entity." This is the flaw in my opponent's argument, that only God has the capability to be perfect because God is undefined. Recall that to define means to limit. A world, number, argument, and cookie can all be defined. A perfect thing, however, cannot be limited. These kinds of limitations also tend to impose subjective conditions on the objects - for instance, say a perfect world is free from disease (though even this is subjective). But what is a disease? God does not suffer from this problem because God is without limitations.You might therefore argue that since sraliglibuqiweklejofonvekjisganelw is undefined it must exist. That is completely correct. However, everything undefined is just another word for God. Why? Because it is perfect and existent, and therefore equivalent since neither has defined additional properties. Therefore this possible counter-argument doesn't stand.3. Perfection is subjectiveMy 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. I bet if I asked everyone who could possibly understand my speech to name me two kinds of omnipotence they could not do it. Why? Because there is only one kind of omnipotence - limitless power. There are simply no alternatives. If there were, my opponent would have presented some.In summary, there is nothing subjective about omnipotence, omniscience, or omni-anything, so why should perfection be subjective? That's why I, as Pro, am proud to say that my idea of perfection is 100% consistent with yours! Nothing is subjective about it.And now it's time for the FINAL ROUND!