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?