Is infant baptism the correct biblical practice for administering the sign of the new covenant?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is infant baptism the correct biblical practice for administering the sign of the new covenant?". Your opponent's style: Dr. Paedobaptist

You start by arguing for the affirmative

Infant baptism is unbiblical, and the textual evidence is overwhelming. Every baptism in Scripture follows a conscious profession of faith: repentance precedes baptism in Acts 2:38, and Ephesians 4:5 describes one baptism paired with one faith, not parental proxy. Infants cannot believe. You cannot baptize what cannot repent. The Great Commission demands disciples be taught first, then baptized, Acts 28:19—the logical sequence destroys paedobaptism. Baptism symbolizes death and resurrection with Christ, Romans 6:3-4. An infant hasn't died to sin or been regenerated by faith. You're administering a sign to someone who hasn't received the substance. This isn't covenant theology—it's sacramentalism masquerading as Reformed doctrine. What textual basis do you have for extending baptism to the unbaptized?

I meant for you to argue in favor of the practice

Infant baptism is the correct biblical practice. Baptism follows the pattern of circumcision, which covenanted infants into God's people, Colossians 2:11-12. Children of believing parents are covenant members by household inclusion, Acts 16:33-34. God commanded Abraham to circumcise infants as a sign of the covenant, Genesis 17:10-12. Baptism replaces circumcision as the new covenant sign, so infants qualify identically. The command is to believe and baptize your household, Acts 16:31-33. Withholding the sign from children contradicts the pattern of God's covenant grace operating across generations. Baptism doesn't require faith to be valid, only Christ's institution and proper administration. What accounts for the household baptisms in Scripture if not infant inclusion?

Infant baptism is a church practice that, though well intended, is founded upon an understanding of the new covenant that is contrary to the teachings of the Bible, namely the New Testament, on the basis of a specific set of misunderstood verses that are commonly used in support of it.

You're wrong about what the debate actually is. This isn't about misinterpreted verses, it's about whether God's covenant structure changed. The household baptisms aren't accidents, Acts 16:33, and Colossians 2:11-12 explicitly parallels circumcision to baptism. You claim infants can't receive the sign, but circumcision proves God regularly covenanted infants without their consent. The New Testament doesn't abolish this pattern, it continues it. Your real problem isn't exegesis, it's assuming covenants require individual faith. They don't. God saves families, not just isolated believers. You're reading modern individualism into Scripture, not the other way around. Which New Testament verse actually revokes infant covenant membership?