If it's possible to go faster than the speed of light, then time travel (into the past) is possible.

I will divide this round into two sections. I will first illustrate that my opponents arguments do not in any way disprove the ability to travel into the past. The second section will prove that given the ability to travel faster than the speed of light, one would then be able to travel into the past.SECTION ONE: 1. "C1: Seeing the pastThere is a way that would allow us to see things from the past. There are places in the universe in which the light that bounced off our Earth (or any object) has not reached. If we travelled to that place in the universe in a speed faster than the speed of light (another way of doing this would be to warp spacetime, but that would be dangerous), and the looked at the object whose light had not reached that place yet, and we were able to see that object, then what we'd be seeing is the light that had actually reached that place, so we'd be seeing what that thing looked like in the past (2).Then, if we travelled at a speed above the speed of light to the object, we'd obviously be seeing things that happened in the past.However, everything we heard, smelt and touched would be from whatever was happening in present day, because it wouldn't actually be the past, we'd only be seeing things that happened in the past when the light hadn't yet reached your eyes. Otherwise, it's the present."My opponents arguments can be summarised as follows:"By looking at extremely distant objects, we are looking into the past. This does not constitute time travel, because while we may see an occurrence in the past, we ourselves are in the present."I agree entirely with my opponent. By looking at distant objects, we in no way, shape, or form travel into the past.The second part of my opponents argument : "Then, if we travelled at a speed above the speed of light to the object, we'd obviously be seeing things that happened in the past."My opponent demonstrates here that he truly misunderstands the entire concept of "lightspeed=Timetravel". I will present my argument, and let my opponent refute me, rather than vise versa.2. "If time travel into the past were possible, then you'd be able to interfere with the past in such a way that changes the future. For example, you could go back in time and kill your granddad. Since your granddad is dead, he could never give birth to your mother and so you wouldn't be able to exist. But, you couldn't have killed your granddad because in this scenario, you don't exist. This is one of the many paradoxes with travelling into the past. There are many more you could think of, this is just one. See, if you interfered with the future (present), as you likely would, it would be different. But the present cannot be one thing and not another in accordance to the law of non-contradiction (3).Therefore, being able to travel at speeds above the speed of light wouldn't make it possible to travel into the past as an impossible thing cannot happen."Here my opponent attempts to disprove the possibility of time travel based on the possible outcome. This is fallacious in that this argument is based of of the following logic:If A happens, and makes B possible, then we choose to do B, which would negate A, then A is always impossible.The fault here is obvious.SECTION TWO:The only possible way to travel faster than light is to summon post-infinite energy[1]. While this is not possible, we are arguing from the assumption that it is. According to the theory of specific relativity, an object moving compared to a stationary object will experience slower time than the stationary object to which it is compared. The faster the object in question moves, the slower time it experiences[2]. Eventually, the slowing of time will cause it to freeze altogether. Physicist have determined that this occurs at the speed of light[3]. Following the same pattern, if one were to travel faster than the speed of light then time passage would go negative and the object would them begin to move into the past.Sources:1. University of Californiahttp://math.ucr.edu...2. The University of New South Waleshttp://www.phys.unsw.edu.au...3. Stanford Universityhttp://einstein.stanford.edu...