The Bible teaches that water baptism is for - to obtain - the remission of sins.

Well, I suppose it's my job to dispute the negative, although I think a reader could judge for himself without my comments. I agree with con on several points: 1. "As I don't know what Mark 16:16 is. " I'll whole-heartedly agree. 2. "I'll accept the translation, but truthfully I haven't made enough of a study of the Bible. " Agreed. 3. "I have absolutely no intention of having a discussion on Biblical grammar. " Agreed. 4. "There are some historical records which show stories from the Bible actually happened" True 5. "I am not intimately familiar with all of the New Testament". Agreed. Well, onward and upward - or downward: 1. "My sentence that you asked for supports my position in the following manner. " Well, in giving a grammatically-parallel sentence to "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he the disbelieveth shall be condemned," you give ""He that fights and wins shall immediately receive $1,000, but he that does not fight shall not receive it. " So, according to you, a fella that just shows up and fights and loses still gets the one grand. " So if you'd stepped in the ring with Ali and found yourself on the mat within 15 seconds, you'd have gotten up (if you could), and asked for your cash. I don't think so. 2. ""He that eats and sleeps shall be saved; but he that doesn't eat shall be condemned. " Well, since I asked for $1,000 as the reward, I'll take the liberty of altering it: "He that eat and sleeps shall receive $1,000, but he that doesn't eat shall not receive it. " A child that eats all his lunch, for instance, then doesn't take his nap still gets the cash? He could just finish up his sandwich, be wide awake, get up from the table and request payment? Hmmmmm. And you said, "My sentence that you asked for supports my position in the following manner. " Why launch into a drawn-out explanation? You have two conditions, eating and sleeping, and you wanna give away the thousand bucks after the person stuffs his stomach? That does not support your position at all - assuming you have a position. 3. "I have no Bible to reference" Bibles are available online. 4. "But make no mistake I'm not having an argument about grammar. " I actually didn't anticipate that you would, but I did as the pro. If you choose not to dispute it, then it will stand. It was gonna stand, anyway, though. 5. "We are arguing that baptism, with the use of water, is meant to cleanse the souls of men in some fashion. " No, we're not. The proposition reads (and the definitions imply) that water baptism is unto - to obtain - the remission of sins. "Unto" means "in view of an as-yet unreached end. " Literal water cannot "cleanse" a literal soul, and I never stated that it did. 6. "If there is no way to reverse the position of being saved and baptism, that immediately disproves my opponents point. If salvation is irrevocably before baptism, then there is no debate. " Well, not much of one. The verse reads, "He that (1) believeth and (2) is baptized shall (3) be saved. " If there is no way to reverse that order, then my point is proven - not disproven. And I presented the argument from English and Greek grammar that "is baptized" and "shall be saved" cannot be inverted. You are "not discussing grammar", so the point holds. 7. "The use of the word "Therefore" implies that my opponent has played some kind of logical trump card, which my opponent has not. " It's a "trump card" until to you successfully disprove it. 8. "If the entirety of Acts 2 teaches salvation by faith, even if not faith exclusively, then the Bible is clearly placing a heavier emphasis on the act of belief rather than the ritual of baptism. " And the point? I'm not arguing relative "emphasis" of this or that - I never implied it. 9. "but here I choose to insert my heathen interpretation. " LOL 10. "Furthermore, my opponent implies that baptism is meant to repeatedly remove sins. " No, sorry, I didn't even hint at that concept. 11. "If something is done for the remission of sins, why would it be possible to only do it once? " Because that's what the Bible teaches, maybe? 12. "Just because baptism is mentioned, doesn't mean that it is the primary delivery system of salvation. " Never said it was. Baptism alone is for nothing - other than getting wet. 13. "So Paul seeks a more physical affirmation of his faith. " Who said that, other than you? Whoever said that Paul was runnin' around and lookin' for a "more physical affirmation" of anything? Bibles are available online: why don't you familiarize yourself with Acts 22? I will not introduce any new arguments. I'd hate to see what he would type in response to them. I presented Mark 16: 16; he has no Bible and can't even remember what it says after I quote it. I noticed grammatical arguments which sustain my position, but he righteously ignores them: "I have absolutely no intention of having a discussion on Biblical grammar. " Well, then the grammatical line of argumentation stands, and baptism stands between the believer and salvation. Both of your sentences simply bolster my position. Oh, I get three more questions (lucky me): 1. What must a person do to be saved? 2. Please provide one grammatically-parallel sentence in English to Mark 16: 16 in the form, "He that (a) and (b) shall (c) receive $1,000, but he that does not (a) shall not (c) receive it", that you believe supports your position. Try it again - those first two simply proved my contention. 3. You said, "The Bible doesn't teach anything. " Then why are you worried about the subject enough to debate it? Are you debating what the Bible teaches, yet the Bible teaches nothing? " By the way, you said, "Back to what I was saying, my opponent has made no response to my claims that swimming is now a holy act. " Nope, I didn't even acknowledge it. Please note that your remarks along that line were in the 1st round. This was one of the terms: "First round acceptance only. If any questions, ask in the comments section, and I'll respond. "