The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[Esquilax]

If you had the choice to be stuck in a cage with one of two hungry lions who have all the same properties, except one exists in the actual world, and the other possibly exists, but not actually.   Which one would you choose?  

The latter, but changing the frame of the topic also changes the variables under discussion. At the point that we're discussing lions and cages, we're no longer having a conversation in any way related to the god question.

While overcoming adversity or handicap is commendable I don't think there is anything which logically makes it greater (emotionally perhaps).  In this separate argument which you have created to knock down, it leads to absurdity, and therefore it is not possible (given the principle of sufficient reason).  I don't see how it effects the ontological argument.

So, in my hypothetical, you have two beings: one is the maximally great being as understood by the ontological argument, which is a being that does things and has power, but that those things and that power are conditional on that being existing, given that "demonstrating" the existence of that being is the purpose of the argument and if it fails to do so, obviously the premises and characteristics of that being no longer matter. The other is my proposed maximally great being, which is exactly as powerful as the former being, but lacks this limitation of needing to exist in order to do things and have power.

Which one is greater: the being limited by needing to exist, or the one whose greatness does not carry this requirement? I fail to see how it's even possible to suggest the former.

Now, of course, in real life I don't find that argument particularly compelling, but that's a function of my not finding the ontological argument compelling in the least. I've already had to lower my standards of argumentation in order to address this particular dumpster fire on its own anemic merits, instead of just relying on the obvious point ("you can't argue a god into existence") but I think the fact that I was able to construct a valid rebuttal to the ontological argument that is also completely nonsensical on the face of it just demonstrates how nonsensical the thing I was responding to is.

It's the same problem that all these "I'm going to logic god into existence with vaguely defined philosophical handwaving," style arguments: a skilled enough wordsmith, equally as unencumbered from having to demonstrate a damn thing as the apologist is, can easily turn the terms of the argument back on itself without breaking a sweat. I sweetened the pot by adding in a few more points regarding the illogic of the individual premises, but thus far they've been largely ignored in favor of simply assuming the premises to be valid and rolling from there.