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

I would like to open by saying that I do not fully understand what my opponent is attempting to prove. In his instigating statement, he claims that, quote "time is just an idea that has no effect on the rest of the universe, it is just a made up thing to help understand why we are here and what our place is (Not a religious debate)," but then he continues in his next argument by acknowledging that time exists, but is not a force as described by physics. Much of my opponent's arguments are not topics of debate at all, but are simply statements of common sense - such as that a year on another planet may not be the same as a year on Earth. I will, however, proceed in chronological order with my rebuttals to all those claims of my opponent's which are flawed. My opponent says that humans age "unlike rocks," a point he himself proceeds to disprove when he says "If you have some matter, over "time" it oxidizes and turns to rust, all that this is, is exposure to other elements. " By saying "over time" he clearly acknowledges the existence and necessity of time in this universe. Humans age because cells undergo changes. "Aging" is a term we use to describe those changes. Rocks are not humans, but over time, water can wear them down. In the case of materials such as silver, it can react with the air and tarnish due to oxidization. If time were stopped, that oxidization would not occur. The Earth would not orbit the sun because if it could not move through time, it could not move through space, since time is a part of this universe. My opponent, however, claims that time has no bearing on the universe. That is false. Time is the progression from one moment to the next that we all experience. Time is a basic facet of this universe. There is no commonly-accepted definition of time, other than the fact that it is, and that, in this universe, time moves in one direction - events happen in a chronological sequence. Since my opponent has failed to establish and maintain a consistent claim of what exactly time is, it is difficult for me to refute him. Since I am not sure what exactly to refute, I shall conclude by refuting some of the other flawed claims my opponent made. I quote: "Let's say you stay on Earth and I go to a distant planet for 10 years. Now I come back after ageing for 10 years, and you and everyone else has been dead for 10,000 years. How is this possible if we both age at the same rate? We track one "year" as one time the Earth goes around the sun, and one "day" is some rotation of the Earth around its axis. One Earth year is 31,556,926 seconds. In the example we both aged for 31,569,260 seconds, but you have been dead for much longer. I would not have been alive for 10,010 years, yet that is how much "time" has passed on Earth. " At first, I thought the above made sense - but after reading it, I see clearly that it does not. First, I would like to correct a mistake: 10 Earth years in seconds is 315,569,260 seconds, not 31,569,260. However, he says that we both aged for 315,569,260 seconds, yet I have been dead for 10,000 years. These two scenarios are clearly completely incompatible and contradictory: For 10,000 years is 315,569,260,000 seconds. That is, 315,569,260,000 seconds will pass in the time it takes the Earth to make 10,000 trips around the Sun. At this point, I would like to introduce some definitions: Independent time - A length of time not dependent on any external event. One second is one second on Earth or out in deep space. Dependent time - A length of time defined by an external event, such as a day, because it is one rotation of the Earth. I think the above definitions are completely logical, factual and reasonable. So, I have refuted my opponent's above-quoted paragraph because he first claims we both age for an independent amount of time, but then contradicts himself by claiming that I have been dead for 10,000 years, or 315,569,260,000 in independent time. Since my opponent contradicts himself, his argument is self-refuting, and furthermore, his conclusion that, quote "The only explanation for this is that "time" does not exist" is false. Finally, I shall take a look at my opponent's last paragraph: In short, he tries to show that time does not exist because some planets have longer orbits than others, and because he would age a given independent amount of time while orbiting the Sun more times due to his planet having a shorter orbit, time does not exist. He also draws the conclusion that, because the planets in question will continue to orbit the Sun for as long as their orbital patterns are not interrupted, time does not exist. The fact that the planets will continue to orbit the Sun unless interrupted proves nothing about time. If anything, the concept that a planet could orbit the Sun at one point, but then be stopped from orbiting it later actually proves time exists - since there are two states - a planet orbiting the Sun, and a planet knocked off course - which are separated by time - the time it takes for some event to occur capable of knocking a planet out of its orbit. I await my opponent's rebuttal.