Yep.

Like I said at the beginning. My first definition of consciousness is "a word meaningless enough to mean what you want, while still sounding like a serious person having a serious conversation".

Here is a list of your mistakes:

1. you never provided a competing definition of consciousness, meaning I set the terms of the debate.
2. you seem to have realized (1), and instead of correcting it you started answering arguments you invented on my behalf, instead of responding to the arguments I made.
3. you are now trying to fix (1), but in a roundabout way involving (2), which makes you look unserious.
4. you ignored my first definition, in which I made it pretty clear I didn't take you very seriously at all to begin with. Still don't, much like I don't take anyone seriously when they discuss consciousness.

On the other hand, you don't seem stupid. Try joining a debate club at the local college, learn some fundamentals of rhetoric, and things will go much better for you in the future.

Edit: theories of consciousness are just as BS as theories of teapots orbiting Uranus, as they are unfalsifiable without arbitrary constraints.

Edit2: also, I should point out that having defined consciousness as 'awareness of the passage of time' after mentioning stimulus-response, I was pretty clearly setting up an argument that literally everything is conscious. That's why you should not have let me define the terms, and brought your own definition that I would have had to argue against.