Do your beliefs imply a Necessary being exists?

[Reforged]

"Supposedly"? Does it or not?

That's the conclusion of the argument, anyway. It's only proven if the argument is sound, right? And I'm pretty sure we're trying to argue that it's unsound.

Are you actually saying existence wouldn't need to be necessary for the existence of a necessary being and that this doesn't need to be logically proven before we can even attempt to logically prove the existence of a necessary being?

And I needn't always prove a graph is triangle-free before I prove it's bipartite. Likewise, if I can directly prove that a particular solution to a problem exists, I need not prove whether solutions exist in general beforehand. How many examples do I have to throw at you here?

Because that wouldn't be very clever.
As far as I can see the survey doesn't prove that and doesn't even make the attempt. It skips the step altogether making the argument fundamentally flawed.

This is like saying you can't travel between San Diego and Sacramento without going through Los Angeles. Arriving at point C need not require a stop at point B.

Is this like a game to see how many non-answers you can come up with? Because I think you might be winning.
You have empirical evidence when it comes to graphs, you can observe various kinds. There is no such evidence to prove anything that exists is necessary. If we are arguing purely from logic then I insist we do it properly.
Implying the existence of a necessary being implies existence itself is necessary. No logical attempt to justify this assumption has been made, this step has been skipped. If you skip fundamental steps required to back up your logic when logic is supposedly all your argument hinges upon then it falls apart.
Are you going to make the attempt or not?
If not, please stop wasting my time by defending something you don't even buy into and defending it with badly thought out comparisons at that.