That's factually inaccurate. And this is what Andrew was trying to avoid. Simply defend the acceptability of marrying a 6 year old. This shouldnt be difficult if you believe it to be acceptable.

​@@DannyDoGoodYou are exactly correct, sir. I wish they understood this simple point.

Then make the debate about that before hand, but that wasn’t the key topics chosen for this specific debate. The topics chosen by both parties were over the age of consent in the Islam faith and then the trinity on the Christian side. Sneako told Andrew that lantern wanted to debate Andrew specifically on the trinity which is fairly complex in its own right. Andrew only made it fair and offered that lantern defends the age of consent in the Islam faith in return. Andrew would have let lantern challenge his stance on the trinity and would not have brought up Islam once when it was lanterns turn to challenge andrews stance on the trinity. All andrew expected was the same treatment in return, in which both parties agreed on before the debate. If lantern wanted to set up a debate specifically about the age of consent between both Christianity and Islam, I’m sure Andrew would not run away. But that has to be established before a debate…. Otherwise it comes across as bad faith, changing the rules and stipulations mid debate.

@@DannyDoGoodexactly.

Nowhere in the bible does it mention the age of Rebekah. Also just because priests did something doesn’t mean it’s in the bible. Having sex with children is permitted by quran and hadiths it’s not permitted in The Bible. So your argument is totally invalid. Lots of “‘Muslims” who drink and get tattoos. Does that mean it’s allowed in Islam?

This is Russia's army .... not Islam