Time is just an illusion/made up force that helps us understand our place in the Universe

During this round, I will not respond to every sentence my opponent states, but will only quote and refute what may be refuted, or what is a fallacy. My opponent's argument is full of random, but factual statements, so if I do not quote something, that may be taken as either my agreement with the statement, or that I feel it is too incomprehensible to respond to. "In order for C to be = to 1, A would have to be = to -1, If C = A = 1, then there would be two of me co-existing within myself." - In this example, C cannot be equal to one, otherwise C will be referencing A - not *being* A, but referencing it, in which case, the C/D relationship would simply be a mathematical mistake. My opponent then says "In order for this not to occur, everything is constantly changing. If I wave my arms, air molecules are displaced, thus yielding a change in the existence of the Universe." If we go along with my opponent and agree that C being equal to 1 would represent a double-existence of himself (or in actuality, myself), then this (the first sentence) is true, or, a better word might be "relevant." The second sentence is simply a statement of fact. "Because the Universe is constantly changing we continue to exist, if the universe seizes to change, then we will co-exist inside ourselves an infinite number of times until a change occurs, which is yet to happen." - If the universe ceased to change in the manner you are suggesting, it would represent a freeze of time, motion, and change within the universe, as if the entire universe had been put into a stasis field. We would not "co-exist inside ourselves" (what does that mean?) "an infinite number of times until a change occurs," we would simply exist in a frozen state until the universe resumed normal operations. "Because we live in the "present" and not in the "past", things in the "past" seize to exist." - My opponent has not proven this point, or cited a source on a peer-reviewed scientific study lending credence to such a theory. His evidence amounts to his own word, random statements of fact, and other fallacies and falsehoods. "Just as computer hard drives constantly rewrite themselves, our existence rewrites itself," - this is not true. When a computer rewrites a file, the contents of the original file are lost. Our existence, therefore, does not rewrite itself. A better analogy would be a computer install log file, written as a computer installs a program. To use my opponent's own terminology, the zero-point would be the current bit of data the computer is writing, which would mean that a negative point would have to exist, because it references a previous part in the file, and a positive point would reference a hypothetical part of the file which does not exist at the zero point. If anything, this analogy, again, using my opponent's own terminology, actually proves the existence of time. The past does not exist at the present within time, but that does not mean it does not exist, any more than a part of a file within a computer that has been written before the part which is currently being written does not exist because it is not currently being written. "You are saying that as we progress through time we are the same person, but at a different time and place in the universe. The only way this could be true is if each second is a new dimension of existence and it is possible to move from on dimension to the next." - My opponent presented no evidence that this is true, therefore I claim that this point is void. It is purely speculative, and has no basis in known science, fact, logic nor common sense. Finally, my opponent claims that I have proposed millions of dimensions, millions of different versions of me." I never claimed that anywhere in this debate. My opponent made this up and then put those words in my mouth, which I feel is very inappropriate for a debate of this type. My opponent abandoned his initial resolution in his very first actual argument, and then went off making random statements, either of pure common sense having nothing to do with the debate, or complete falsehoods with absolutely no support of any kind. I feel I have adequately refuted my opponent's claims to the point where it should be obvious that time does indeed exist and is a very real part of the functioning of the universe. With all due respect to my opponent, I urge readers to vote Con. Thank you, -A. Winterblade