Anslem's argument is sound.

[Edwardo Piet]

1. It is greater to exist than not to exist (We try to prevent death because we all believe in this).

No.

It is preferable to continue existing once one already exists (assuming that life isn't unbearable). If I did not exist to begin with then no one would care.

I'd actually argue that overall the world would be an improvement if life never existed because overall suffering outweighs pleasure.

A truly perfect being is a nonexistent being.

So in that sense I guess God is pretty perfect

Oh by the way . . . has anyone else here heard of this parody of the ontological argument?

Australian philosopher Douglas Gasking (1911–1994) developed a version of the ontological argument meant to prove God's non-existence. It was not intended to be serious; rather, its purpose was to illustrate the problems Gasking saw in the ontological argument.
Gasking asserted that the creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable. The merit of such an achievement is the product of its quality and the creator's disability: the greater the disability of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. Non-existence, Gasking asserts, would be the greatest handicap. Therefore, if the universe is the product of an existent creator, we could conceive of a greater being—one which does not exist. A non-existent creator is greater than one which exists, so God does not exist. Gasking's proposition that the greatest disability would be non-existence is a response to Anselm's assumption that existence is a predicate and perfection. Gasking uses this logic to assume that non-existence must be a disability.