I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
2P1: Lack of Scientific Basis
Biblical Creationism is NOT based in science, and can be rejected on those grounds alone.
Biblical Creationism is not science, but religion; if it has no basis in science and fact, then there is no reason to believe it (outside of faith, which is also flawed).
Biblical Creationism is unfalsifiable. Why? Because whenever an evolutionist proves that an aspect of creationism is scientifically impossible, incredibly improbable, or contradictory, a Biblical Creationist can just say that "God did it using magic, so, uhm, that makes it possible!" This can never be disproven, because God will always make creationism appear possible, making it impossible to find a disproof of creationism.
It's like this: Say I tell you that there's a gigantic pink elephant sitting next to you. You doubt me, noticing a distinct lack of elephant, pink or otherwise. I tell you that it's there, but it's just invisible to you and me, because the Flying Spaghetti Monster gave it an invisibility + nonmateriality cloak. There is no way that you can prove me wrong -- and no way that I can prove myself correct.
As such, either my opponent must accept that Biblical Creationism is NOT science because it is unfalsifiable, or that God cannot intervene outside of where mentioned by the Bible, because that would make it unfalsifiable and fit the former reason.
Biblical Creationism argues that the world is below 6,000 years old . If the world is proven to be older than 6,000 years, then the Bible is not inerrant, and Biblical Creationism is false. Clearly, the world is older than 6,000 years, because many artifacts have been dated to older than 6,000 years old. Let me provide a few samples:
5,063 years - Currently unnamed tree . This tree is too old for Biblical Creationism not because it would be older than the world but because it would have had to been alive since before the flood began.
11,750 years - King Clone creosote bush ring . Dated both through known creosote growth rates and through carbon 14 dating, this bush ring is 5,750 years too old for Biblical Creationism.
160,000 years - Ice cores . Using multiple dating methods, this ice sheet is too old both for the existence of the Earth and for a global flood. The only way to account for this level of ice core development within 6,000 years would be to have 27 layers of ice fall each year, every year, on the polar ice caps, which has not been documented ever and would need a mechanism.
8,550,000 years - Magnetic reversals . The change of polarity of the earth occurs once about every 50,000 to 800,000 years, and very very very rarely much more frequently than that. About 171 reversals are currently documented, which places the Earth at a minimum of 8.55 million years old, or 8,544,000 years too old for Biblical Creationism.
13,000,000,000 years - SDSS 1306+0356 . This quasar is 13 billion light-years away from earth; consequently, if the speed of light has not changed, then the universe must be a minimum of 13 billion years old. 12,999,994,000 years too old for Biblical Creationism.
Biblical Creationism cannot be true, because it predicts a false age of the Earth; given that its entire theory is based on the inerrancy of the literal Bible, which is now errant, it falls.
2P1C. the Global Flood
If the entire world was flooded, then certainly there must be evidence of it. I ask my opponent to provide this evidence, because otherwise there is no reason to believe that it is true.
Moreover, there's simply not enough water on Earth to cause a global flood, as one should realize when one realizes that water sinks to the lowest location. Flooding the world up to Mount Everest (as the Bible dictates) would require 4,530,000,000 km^3 of water, or about 3 times as much water is present on Earth . Where did the water come from? Where did it go? Why?
Some might argue that the flood created the mountains. This is unfeasible -- a flood that created both the Sahara (noted for flatness) and Mount Everest (noted for lack of flatness) could not occur, simply because a great enough to flatten a desert has plenty to quickly erode a mountain, leaving us only with the possibility that God preserved the landscape of the world, which would also be required for Noah to land back into his native Middle East. (Think sand castles -- how often does a wave roll in and create both a flat area and a nonflat area?)
Moreover, the Ark simply would not float. Aside from the fact that the Ark is not large enough , the Ark could never have survived multiple-mile-high waves  formed by the winds sweeping water around without any ground to break them up. No land animals could possibly have survived.
This is not to mention what the sediment would do to sea creatures or how viruses and bacteria were transported.
Biblical Creationism cannot be true, because it predicts an impossible global flood of the Earth; given that its entire theory is based on the inerrancy of the literal Bible, which is now errant, it falls.
2P2: Biblical Problems
The Bible is not a good enough source for the information on the formation of the universe.
Only one contradiction or error is enough to prove the Bible errant, Biblical inerrancy wrong, and Biblical Creationism totally baseless. I've provided three.
1: God the frenemy
Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27: Love God.
Deuteronomy 6:13, Psalms 33:8, 34:9, 111:10, 115:13, 128:1, 147:11, Proverbs 8:13, 16:6, 19:23, 22:4, Isaiah 8:13, Luke 12:5, 1st Peter 2:17: Fear God.
1st John 4:18: There is no fear in love.
2. Death waits not
Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27: Jesus says to his listeners that some of them will not taste death before he comes again in his kingdom. Jesus said this a little under 2000 years ago. I leave it an exercise to the reader to tell whether or not his promise held true.
3. Identity crisis
2nd Corinthians 13:11, 14, 1st John 4:8, 16: God is love.
Genesis 4:15, Deuteronomy 32:19-27, Isaiah 34:8: God is a vengeful god.
Biblical Creationism cannot be true, because the Bible is contradictory and/or false; given that its entire theory is based on the inerrancy of the literal Bible, which is now errant, it falls.
To quote Jesus, "I speak to them in parables..."
The Bible makes use of stories and parables, metaphor and allegory . Why should these stories be taken literally? Genesis, too is one of these stories . This is why there are two Genesis accounts -- they are not a literal telling of the creation of the world, but a creation myth created by priests for the Jewish people to believe so that their religion sounds good.
Why take a story literally unless the facts back it up, especially when it was neither meant nor possible to be taken literally?
Biblical Creationism cannot be true, because the entirety of the Bible not supposed to be inerrant; given that its entire theory is based on the inerrancy of the literal Bible, which is now errant, it falls.
 Laurie R. Godfrey (1983). "Scientists Confront Creationism". W. W. Norton & Company, Canada. Pages 35-36. ISBN 0393301540.
 Meyer, Nathan M. 1977. Noah's Ark-Pitched and Parked. Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books.
 http://www.biblegateway.com... (Look at title.)