Then I chimed in (actually uninvited to the exchange, merely observing as an onlooker) and corrected both of you, remarking that baptism is for believers, with the implication that baptism does not make one a believer; and wetting ones skin with water does not save. Those are not straw men distractions, they are statements directly negating both your basic assumptions and hypotheses arising from it. It was just an assessment of the silliness of your debate progress.
I also added an observation, not relative to your speculations, but touching the topic of baptizing Martians, as a teaser. Not having anything directly affecting your exchanges, had nothing to do with straw man or no straw man.
What are you trying to prove?
Nope. Paragraph one is filled with - at best - false assumptions, conclusions or assumptions. Making your statement somewhere between these and straw men or a combination of both.
And, so that we don’t substitute a straw man for your position on baptism, what exactly is your position?