Baptism is essential to salvation

"i want you to read the whole chapter "THAT ISNT HOW ARGUMENT IS DONE. Never, ever, ever talk about how you "want us to read" something in a debate. It's YOUR job to make your arguments, not ours."because it proves"YOU have to prove, and explain the proof.I already addressed your "And peter" argument. I already addressed your "acts" argument. You have added nothing to them, you have not addressed my criticisms, you just make stuff up about supposed misquoting. It isn't even apparent that you know what the word misquoting means."my opponent doesn't realize the truth which the bible says"Appeal to intimidation."How can you say it is already established as impossible according to the bible, when the bible states so"Stupid question, it is because the bible says so that I say that according to the bible it is established. I already told you how I could say that in the first round, see: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."http://www.biblegateway.com... "- he didn't even acknowledge that the following verses states that Saul of Tarsus was saved through baptism.(Acts 22:16) "http://www.biblegateway.com...Get up. and be baptized. And wash your sins away. AND. Not THEREFORE. AND. it also says nothing about "saved""and con even doesn't realize what I meant about "must", my friend I will ask you what is the topic of our debate? Isn't the debate baptism is essential to salvation? So when I said must, I also meant what Saul of Tarsus "must" do to be saved"AND PRO DOESNT EVEN REALIZE THAT "MUST DO" AND "MUST DO TO BE SAVED" are DIFFERENT PHRASES. AND THE BIBLE QUOTES HE USES ONLY HAVE THE FIRST ONE."Baptism is necessary to (a) salvation (Mark 16:16; I Pet. 3:21)"Mark 16:16 doesn't say that, nor imply it, any apparent implications were already addressed and you complete ignored that address.This is already addressed. ARGUE, DONT JUST REPEAT YOURSELF. RESPOND TO MY RESPONSES.the rest of that paragraph is irrelevant."The purpose of baptism is to be saved."The purpose of a car is to get from point A to point B. That doesn't render the car "Essential," a "necessary condition." And some cars don't even work."(2) Accordingly, in the Bible, baptism was considered an urgent matter. "Assuming you were to demonstrate this which you did not clearly do: Food is an urgent matter, that doesn't mean it's a necessary condition to any random X. Likewise, baptismal urgency does not establish necessity for salvation."A person never ate, drank or slept until he had been baptized upon learning of his need to obey (Acts 16:30-34; 9:18-19). Oh! The urgency! But, why the urgency? Because of baptism’s necessity"Notably, you had something to quote for the first sentence. But when you got to the because, you didn't-- why?Because you made that part up yourself.Also notably, you have refused to debate the actual resolution despite the fact that you are the one who wrote the resolution. This debate is not about whether the Bible says that baptism is essential to salvation. This is about whether baptism is ACTUALLY essential to salvation, in the real world, to be discovered by means other than faith/ ad authoritatem. As Pro has refused to raise any argument pertaining to the resolution, and even were the resolution different his arguments did not demonstrate what they pertained to, and he has the burden of proof-- well, I think you can finish this with the consequence, reader. ^_^