The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[Neo-Scholastic]

For example, a warning traffic sign is an objectively better example of a triangle than a spanakopita.

By an objectively better example of a triangle you are claiming that it's outline is a better fit for the definition of a triangle. A triangle has an objective definition of being a figure with three sides. This is not the case for greatness. There is no objective definition of what constitutes greatness, so whether or not a being fully exemplifies the notion of an objectively great being is a nonsense question. It has no sense in which it is true or false.

I am using the word "great" in the same way as in "x is greater than or equal to 3". I believe that is the proper interpretation of greatness as it relates to the argument. For any additive property the MGB has it to the greatest extent.