I believe I have adapted the original ontological argument and made it universally applicable ! This is simply amazing, for I can use this argument in all cases (and win !) . Consider the following statements :
1) First, let A be the greatest concievable argument in defense of something.
2) Evidently, A must have the property of being able to win the case, otherwise we can concieve of a greater argument, one that can win the case.
3) Similarly, A must have the property of existing, otherwise we can concieve of an argument that is the same of A , but with the additional property of existing.
4) This means that A, which enables us to win the case, actually exists.
Interesting, no ? Note that when I say 'concieve of an argument', you only have to imagine the possibility of such an argument, and not the actual argument.
Anyway, I raised this example merely as an mental exercise. In truth this argument is useless, because both sides of an argument can use it !