The age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.

My opponent decided to drop every contention I made, and wants you to do so as well, why? Because my opponent claims I did not use logic to explain my case, his warrants? ZERO This debate has now become a debate on whether or not I use logic to support my case. If you the voter find that I do use logic to support my case, which I will prove to you (with logic) in a minute, then you will find that all of my arguments stand unanswered by Pro and are thus conceded to be true. This is because Pro puts no ink on any of my contentions, meaning the only reason you will have to disregard my argument is if you have decided to personally, which is not an objective vantage for a judge to take. Once again I implore you to take a stance of skepticism in this debate and read as if you had no previous opinion about the subject, obviously this is not entirely possible, but down voting an argument because you disagree with it personally is not the way one finds a debate to be won. ANSWER 1. LOGIC Definition: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. A) To prove I am using logic I am simply going to write a math problem using the symbols I designate my arguments with. (A+(i+ii+iii))+(B+(i+ii+iii))+(C+i)+(D(i+ii))+(E+(i+ii+iii))=CLAIM i. Logic is using symbols to form a pattern that explains using supporting symbols the function from which an outcome is derived. ii. As I have just proven to you above, my argument relies heavily an sequential symbols to lead to and support the validity of my claim. B) FALLACY i. on an offensive note, to explain that I am not using logic my opponent makes a claim that he does not support with sequence or pattern, meaning the validity relies on the argument that my argument x=y illogical. I have proven to you that not only does my argument "use logic" but that his argument that my argument does not uses a logical FALLACY. ii. My opponent actually uses multiple fallacies to prove that my argument is illogical. iii. First off, everything a human does, says, thinks is logical, the question is not logic or no, it is how does the logic work, and does it? iv. If you will visit his answer below, you will see that I have put ink on it in the places where he uses fallacy. (link to list below) Strawman+fallacy fallacy "It appears my esteemed opponent disregarded the first rule of our debate 1. Use logic" A) Misrepresents my argument by saying that I do not use logic as a way of making it easier to attack. B) Although he does not use the word fallacy, saying something is illogical is saying that the logic does not work, which is fallacy, he claims I am illogical, and that is the reason my arguments are wrong, instead of explaining why my logic does not work. He just states, much like a teenager who is not getting their way, "this is stupid. " Burden of proof+Strawman+fallacy fallacy "Not a single of Con's arguments are backed up by evidence or observation,science or logic. Therefore we can simply dismiss Contention. .. " A) Once again he claims that his empty claim that I am not using evidence observation science or logic that (redundant) that my arguments are wrong, he is not showing you why, he is simply stating that it is so. Unless you answer to my opponent as an absolute authority on truth, (I hope not) then you should ask for reason. B) Strawman once again he misrepresents my case by stating that I do not provide evidence or "science" this is simply setting himself up to be able to attack my argument easily, this is lazy debate. C) The burden of proof is on the Pro, I am simply here to break apart his case, also he disregards by use of Descartes, as a check back against this "no evidence waaa" argument, I ask you to look at his cites, you may see that he actually only has one. I feel like I am repeating myself "Con has yet to provide a logical scientific case for the earth being younger than 10,000 years i've provided evidence for the earth being over 10,000 years old backed by logical evidence and observation. A) his argument that his claim is backed by logic and mine is not, is unwarranted, meaning he provides no steps, reason, or evidence that this is true. You should find that the provision of sources is not the be all end all of debate, that if one can explain to you in round using SOUND logic that a claim is true, that you should allow for that as a win. If you want to question a claim or statement, do so specifically, and then prove it not to be true, not generally and for for the whole case. My opponent might have said NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NUHHH UHHHH! Then he could spare us our time by condensing what is essentially a loftily worded Nuh-uh. Contradiction is not a case, and it should not be voted on unless you want to promote debate that does not educate. I have proved to you that my opponent is shooting himself in the foot with his answer phase, that I am using logic, and that you should not disregard my case. VOTE HERE because Pro is abusing this debate by disregarding my entire argument, this is a waste of everyones time, and a waste of a valuable opportunity to educate both myself, him, and viewers. This is bad because education is the purpose of debate, not argue, using logic, that our arguments are using logic. . https://www.google.com... . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... ONTO HIS CASE Despite the fact that I've won this debate because he has dropped my entire case and conceded it to be true, I am going to take apart his case, and show you using LOGIC why he does not prove the resolution. P1. Radiometric dating is something one does within their lifetime, as a way to attempt to understand the objective age of the earth relative to the sun earth revolution relationship that designates what we call years. 1) PROS CASE BITES INTO MY ARGUMENT i. Read contention one section B in my case ii. His argument does not prove because he is using a memory within his lifetime to date the earth iii. He is reading a wiki page, about a guy who was testing the radioactive decay of an element, both of which happened within the lifetime of both the scientist and PRO. iv. Read contention one section D of my case v. Memory is thoughts about thoughts, this is the measure of time, because my opponent conceded cogito ergo sum, than we can say that the only thing Pro is proving is that he has a memory of this time, because that is all he can prove exists, he is essentially illustrating my case. P2. RELIABILITY OF MEMORY i. Memory and thought can only be relied on, as stated in my case, to prove the objective existence of themselves ii. Pro tries to prove that all science is sound iii. The scientific method, Renee Descartes brainchild, disproves the validity of his case iv. All scientific theory in any field is fluid and not permanent v. this proves my contention that anything but the existence of thought is impossible to objectively prove vi. look at the fact that the earth was thought of as only 10,000 years old only 400 years ago. vii. that was then accepted as a scientific fact that could not be refuted viii. The reliability of radiometric dating is by the laws of the scientific method unreliable FINALLY There is not a lot more I can say about this case, it is fairly straightforward. But I will also shell the idea that, pro does not really debate, he just refutes my entire case. This should be considered in the voting process because debate should be contructive and thought out, instead of disregarded. Who should be allowed to declare themselves the winner without giving reason?