Well-Wisher's 'The "I am what I am" Ontological Argument'

​Premise 1: I define God as "A being that is reality".

Premise 2: If "A being that is reality" is "A being that is reality" then it must be "A being that is real".

Premise 3: A being that is reality must be a being that is reality (Because a thing must be itself, X must be X.)

Conclusion: God must be a being that is real.

or to put it another way:

X can't be Y

"A being that is reality" can't be "A being that is not real"

(because if it is "A being that is not real" it is not itself).

Objection: Saying that a Unicorn is a Unicorn doesn't mean a Unicorn exists.

Counter objection: You misunderstand the argument.  The word "Unicorn" gives no information about how real a unicorn is. But if you say "A thing that is real" is "A thing that is real" in order for a "A thing that is real" to be itself it must be exactly what it describes, it must be "A thing that is real".