Having looked at your debate, and you syllogism, I'll just note that most syllogisms allow non sequitur arguments to be considered logical, to wit;
P1 Camels walk
P2 Birds fly
C Therefore, butterflies swim.
It's simple A + B = C, but your elements must truly add up, and it is too easy to proposes elements that do not, such as your R1 argument's syllogism.
That light has traveled 9 billion years, so says NASA. Your argument of "no past" is simply too simplistic because all depends on a point of view. Who's view?