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

Wow, you could at least try to be subtle. Or maybe not. Whatever. I guess I'll respond by point, as there isn't much else to do. I agree with pro on every point with "Agreed" next to it, but I'd like to point out that (4.) was followed by the statement that there are also records which show nothing of the sort. Just thought I should clear that up. 1. First, the sentence about fighting was what I would have said if I had a furious desire to troll you. You said later in your argument that the confusing bit about the $1,000 was supposed to mean that you would give me a $1,000 reward for coming up with such a sentence. According to you, $1,000 wasn't supposed to factor into the sentence. Also according to you, no such sentence was supposed to exist, hence the $1,000 reward. And yes, I am saying that in my own peculiar little religion, if you get into the ring with Ali at all and get knocked flat you shall be rewarded. You said provide a grammatically parallel sentence, not a situationally parallel sentence. Structure, not content. By the way, that first sentence you quoted should have been put under (2.). 2. You have no idea what you are talking about, as firmly evidenced here. I was trying to be a clever agnostic child and say that staying alive is more important. Your alteration with the money is not applicable as you implied later in your argument that your question was flawed. I would have just stuck with the fighting sentence but your grammar was confusing and led me to believe I was supposed to put something else. 3. That's great. Also irrelevant. 4. What I meant was that I wasn't going to follow along with your certainty that we would be discussing participles and such. Which you explicitly stated you were sure we would be. So yes, you did fully expect me to do so by your own admission. 5. I meant holy water. Also, why is it that everything except "water" can be viewed as a literal truth? Everything happened in the Bible, but there was never any water. Also, you both implied and directly stated earlier that baptism washed away the sins on what's-his-names soul. Also, you imply by the affirmation, as out of context as it may have been, of my statement that the Bible may be a historical record that you believe that water can cleanse the soul. Holy as the water may be, at the end of the day it's still water. 6. I shall concede obscure points of English and Greek grammar, mostly because I don't speak Greek, but I refer back to a statement I made earlier. Faith is more important than the meaningless ritual of baptism. The baptism itself serves no function other than as a physical representation of an inward change. I apologize for the confusion on this, I simply read the second half of your (1.) more carefully than I did the first half. 7. Refer to (6.). Last sentence. I was more intently looking at the second half, as in on the other side of your definition. You seem to be taking one refutation and turning it into several. 8. Once again, disjointed attacks. Remission of sins and salvation are nearly identical concepts. As terms they are basically interchangeable. If faith is what saves you, then it stands to reason that baptism is not what saves you. Process of elimination. Sort of. Not really. Close enough. 9. Well. That was polite, also not in any way relevant to anything except your continuing loss of conduct points. 10. Yes, you did. The resolution. Also, my earlier question. "If something is done for the remission of sins, why would it be possible to only do it once?" Your definitions and resolution seem to imply that the only purpose of baptism is to remove the stain of sin from a human soul. So it might perhaps follow that one might want to do it again. In case they did something that might condemn them to the most particularly unpleasant corner of Hell. You quite flagrantly hinted at that concept. 11. Maybe that's what the Bible teaches, but your definitions, which you stated were meant to remove all confusion, take us away from it a bit. Also, beyond the fact that nobody ever did it twice, when in the Bible was there ever any mention of a taboo against doing it more than once? Besides the fact that you say so. 12. Sorry, I'm reading these as I go. You say that the Bible teaches that baptism is for removing sins, for the remission of sins, whatever synonymous term you choose to insert. Yet here you say that baptism is just for getting wet. You blatantly stated by the simple act of affirming the resolution that baptism is the primary means of sin removal, salvation, assorted synonyms. 13. Quotation marks denote quotations. This is what should have been put towards the end of (9.). I was interpreting this particular section of the Bible as the dramatized search for higher meaning and forgiveness of one individual. I needn't familiarize myself with anything. You have provided me with all the familiarity I need. You acknowledge that the Bible may be some kind of historical document, and then refuse the possibility that the people in it acted like real people. I stated that he was, essentially, being psychologically manipulated by Jesus. Which isn't as bad as it sounds. My opponent is taking my confusion over Mark 16:16, which was created by the awkward attempts at showing that the order of the words in the sentence couldn't be altered, and is using it to blatantly insult my intelligence throughout. My sentences, which you also asked for in a somewhat awkward manner, don't bolster your position at all. As the $1,000 was supposed to be a part of my sentence, then the fighting one goes along with parts of what I'm saying quite nicely. Believe in yourself, step into the ring and fight. You go in expecting to be thrashed and win or lose, you still walk away richer. The fight is the journey, the money the reward. Baptism would be like if there was an awards ceremony during the fight. Which in this one there is not. Onward and downward, you state that baptism stands irrevocably in between some person and salvation. Justify then your statement about just getting wet. Also, Harriet Tubman could easily be a saint and was never baptized. She's even listed on the Wikipedia list of 20th century women saints. Justify her current address in Hell. My opponent seems to be refusing to believe that the Bible could be trying to say something more. That maybe the Protestants were right to dispute the endless ritual of Catholicism, and maybe it's the faith and not the ritual that saves us. Maybe the Bible is, just maybe, trying to teach a real lesson with some fake things to drive it home. I believe I already said this, but faith, not baptism, saves the soul. You don't get three more questions, you're just taking advantage of one round of silence on the question front. I'll humor you anyways. 1. Have faith. 2. No. They proved nothing. You were looking for a sentence following that format. You asserted that both of those sentences couldn't possibly exist. I have defied the laws of probability twice. I just wanted an excuse to say that last sentence. Oh yeah, one more thing, my explanation worked fine. As the middle part wasn't necessary, I showed that baptism, the middle part of Mark 16:16, is also unnecessary. Since we're doing things like that. It didn't really support my position that well, but you were still wrong to attack it in the fashion that you did. 3. Since you ignored that the first time, I figured I may as well go on ahead. The Bible would have to mean something to me for it to be teaching something, but you are clearly getting incredibly worked up over this, so I'm assuming the Bible is teaching something. I really, really need to emphasize the fact that I'm not an idiot just because my opponent says so. I slipped one time. One. My opponent has been extremely rude throughout the entirety of that refutation. I don't want an apology, but at least try to be subtle in the future. I'm out of characters. I can't put any more.Sorry