Quod sic: The Statue of Zeus no longer exists (it was destroyed by fire in the 5th century A.D.) Therefore, there is something (the Statue of Zeus) that does not exist.
Contra: How can there be anything which does not exist?
 This question was put 'on hold' by five of the more experienced members of this site, as being unclear as to what was being asked. I am not clear what is unclear about the question, but I will provide a bit of background. I was actually repeating one of the medieval questions that the scholastics asked. The question is whether 'everything exists' is true, i.e. so that whatever thing in the range of quantification you select, is an existent thing, or whether you could find something in the domain that doesn't exist.
That is the question, and it is a deep and fundamental one for our understanding of quantification. I then gave one argument for (quod sic – it is so) and one argument against (contra). The argument for is that the Statue of Zeus does not exist (it was destroyed), therefore, on the grounds that
Fa implies Ex Fx
it follows that something does not exist (where F = exists).
The argument against is that there cannot be anything which does not exist, for to 'be' something is to be, and to be is to exist.
So we have two opposing arguments on the question, what is the correct answer? I provided an answer myself, see below.
I hope this helps.