The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[RoadRunner79]

Oh no my post wasn't worthless, Esq, your brilliant post didn't point out the particular error Roadrunner made that I tried to point out.

I'll try to make it clearer, I write badly:

@ Roadrunner:

In Merriam Webster and a few other dictionaries, "being" "exist" are somewhat circular (referencing each other), so I would say that according those definitions your reference to a non-existing being; is incoherent.

My bolding and underlining. Bolded parts are referring to existence in general, underlined parts to a living being.

Roadrunner these two definitions of "being" are not the same:

existence.
"the railway brought many towns into being"

a real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one.
"alien beings"

So, these are the two definitions of "being" (existence and a living entity) you equivocated, try not to do it again as it is clearly a mistake. Being =/= a being.

@ Esq

I hope my contribution was not entirely without merit?

ETA: I say this because you're by far the superior debater of us two, and I feel like I have almost nothing left to contribute when you're involved in a debate sometimes... due to your awesomeness

I can see your point, but I see the definitions going from the general to the specific.  Interestingly, dictionary.com comes up differently for me.