Anslem's argument is sound.

[Angrboda]

These two premises prove Anselm's argument is correct though secular Academia presents it with the worse bias:
1. It is greater to exist than not to exist (We try to prevent death because we all believe in this).
2. An action that is imagined and intended, is not as good and great as the same action put to practice. That is to say if we wanted to do a good but we didn't, it is not as good as actually doing the act.
To know Anselm's argument, all you need to believe is one premise which is the controversial premise, that is: "Existence is a perfection/greatness/beauty/goodness."
This has been proven, and the rest will be proven easily. He was no dumb person. When we think of ultimate greatness, we cannot define it if it were not a living reality. This is because life is an aspect of ultimate greatness. It is true, and has been proven in the first 2 premises I have shown.
In fact, while true, you don't even have to argue that living is an aspect of every greatness. Just that living is required for a degree of greatness or is part of some of its instance definition.
You can equate imaging being a hero with actually being a hero, but we know the latter is much greater.
So the ultimate one cannot be defined where it not that he exists. And indeed he has been defined for ages.

Ignoring for the moment that this is a terribly pathetic retelling of a classic argument, omitting essential premises and key themes of the argument, you are wrong even on your own terms.  The first premise is not objectively true.  As theists are continually telling us, in a world without their particular God, it matters not whether you live or die.  So your argument fails because you've provided a subjective truth, that I value being alive, as an objective one.  So, no, the argument is not sound, and your incompetent defense of it only shows that you don't know the difference between subjective opinion and objective fact.

Since Anselm's argument (the classic version) is a subject of similar debate in another thread, let us present the actual argument itself and see where this leads.

a. The Argument Described

St. Anselm, Archbishop of Cantebury (1033-1109), is the originator of the ontological argument, which he describes in the Proslogium as follows:

"[Even a] fool, when he hears of … a being than which nothing greater can be conceived … understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding.… And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.… Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality."

The argument in this difficult passage can accurately be summarized in standard form:

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
   
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
   
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
   
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
   
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
   
6. Therefore, God exists.
   

Intuitively, one can think of the argument as being powered by two ideas. The first, expressed by Premise 2, is that we have a coherent idea of a being that instantiates all of the perfections. Otherwise put, Premise 2 asserts that we have a coherent idea of a being that instantiates every property that makes a being greater, other things being equal, than it would have been without that property (such properties are also known as "great-making" properties). Premise 3 asserts that existence is a perfection or great-making property.

Accordingly, the very concept of a being that instantiates all the perfections implies that it exists. Suppose B is a being that instantiates all the perfections and suppose B doesn't exist (in reality). Since Premise 3 asserts that existence is a perfection, it follows that B lacks a perfection. But this contradicts the assumption that B is a being that instantiates all the perfections. Thus, according to this reasoning, it follows that B exists.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/

...I've shown in the past that the notion of a greatest conceivable being is incoherent, though you didn't understand the last time so I'm not optimistic that explaining it again will help.  When you say that God is the greatest conceivable being, you're saying that God has all the good qualities.  But goodness is a subjective judgement, so greatest possible being is a judgement made up of subjective judgements.  For every subjective judgement that says X is a great making quality, there is an equally valid subjective judgement which says that X is a bad making quality.  The reason is because qualities and properties are neither good or bad in and of themselves, they only become so when a subject attaches a value to them.  You cannot construct a greatest anything out of properties that are inherently neutral. So "greatest conceivable being" has no meaning other than as a religious catchphrase.