Karaite Judaism (Pro) vs. Rabbinical Judaism (Con):

Let's sum up all of my arguments in an abridged manner. OBVIOUS FAKEIn the words of the historian Rabbi Yosef Eisen, In the mid-700s, the Exilarch Shlomo died childless. Logically, the elder of his two nephews, Anan, should have inherited the position. However, the Geonim of the time had reason to doubt Anan's character and beliefs, and despite being intellectually superior to his younger brother, Anan was passed over. Anan then declared himself Exilarch, and the Muslim authorities, which had confirmed the Geonim's choice for Exilarch, imprisoned Anan for rebellion. Awaiting execution, Anan, by claiming to be a member of a breakaway Jewish sect, was able to convince the Caliph to release him. Upon release, Anan founded the Karaite movement, which was basically a resurrection of the Sadducean heresy. Karaites argue that the Oral Law was invented by the Sages, but they cannot give us a date when this process started. You said that it was after Josiah's reign, and others say that they were invented after the destruction of the First Temple. You cannot tell us when the oral law sprang up, but we know exactly when Karaism sprang up. Furthermore, we have reason to believe that the oral law is from Moses because of archaeological discoveries, which have revealed tefillin and mikvehs, all of which accord to rabbinic tradition. Your movement is relatively new in comparison to the Oral Law that we have been following for thousands of years, and we should not abandon what we received from Moses because of your silly claims. AMBIGUITY, SUBJECTIVITY, AND PERFECTION1. The Torah is very ambiguous. Therefore it cannot possibly be followed without an objective interpretation.2. You will say that the Torah is not ambiguous and can be interpreted according to logic and common sense. However this is flawed. If you interpret the verses according to your logic, and someone from another community does the same; you may have two different Torahs. That is not objective. If you disagree, you are simultaneously agreeing with me, because if there is any manner of dispute, that shows that the Torah is ambiguous by default. This should be obvious and self-evident. You cannot squeeze an entire civil law which applies for all time into five books. There are plenty of things that the Torah does not address. You will say "Things like this should be obvious", and I will respond "Obvious to you, but not to your fellow."3. This does not detract from the Torah's perfection. The fact that the Written Torah cannot and does not stand alone does not make it any less perfect. What is it like? Like a perfect children's picture book without actual words, making it nearly impossible to understand the message. DO NOT ADDThe Karaite has argued that the rabbis are guilty of adding to the Torah, thus violating the prohibition "Do not add or subtract" (Deut 4:2). I still do not know what this refers to, but let's go over all possibilities and answer them one by one: 1. The Karaite is referring to the Oral Law:This is circular reasoning; a grievous logical fallacy. It's basically saying "Since I am right, you are wrong." I am arguing that the oral law was ALSO given at Mt. Sinai. Thus, you not believing in it would be violating the prohibition against "do not subtract" (ibid.) You cannot use the subject of debate as an argument in that very debate.2. The Karaite is referring to rabbinical ordinances and fences around the Torah:Either way, rabbis have permission to add ordinances, as it says, "You shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left." (Deut 17:11). But that aside, most rabbinic ordinances are not actually mitzvot in themselves, but "fences" around mitzvot. In other words, the Sages make things forbidden as a precaution so that nobody should transgress a Biblical commandment. For example: Deoraita, a person may fulfill his obligation to recite the nighttime Shema until the light of dawn arises. However, in order to prevent procrastination, the Sages declared that it may only be said until midnight. This is a protective fence around the Torah, and such ordinances have saved many from sin.3. The Karaite is referring to rabbinic commentaries and expositions on the Tanakh:I don't know why this should be considered adding at all. They are not editing the Torah scroll, all they are doing is adding notes and thoughts to help understand the ever-so ambiguous Torah. KARAITE HYPOCRISYKaraites only believe in the Tanakh and reject the oral Torah. However, this is very hypocritical for the following reasons: 1. It is only through the strict oral laws of writing Torah scrolls that we have preserved the original Torah manuscript.2. It was the Jewish Sages who canonized the Tanakh.3. The vowels were added to the Tanakh by Masoretes, all of whom did so using oral tradition.4. (This last reason is connected to the above argument of "do not add") You say that we are liable for adding to the Torah. In that case, why do you believe in the Prophets and Writings? Those are not additions? And they are certainly far more authoritative than the medieval rabbinic commentaries. You are only able to read from the Tanakh because of the oral tradition which preserved it, through its canonization, and through the Masorete vowels. YOUR HYPOCRISYThroughout the course of our debate, you have displayed much hypocrisy. Let us be brief and list a mere 3 examples: 1. You have not yet made it clear if you believe that there was an oral law or not. On one hand you say perhaps, and on the other; there was no oral law.2. You have said that it is impossible for the Sages to have received tradition from Moses, but remarkably you admitted that it was possible for them to have received tradition from both Egypt and Greece.3. When I pointed out that the Sages had knowledge of frozen water in space (comets, thus displaying their divine knowledge), originally you said that this was knowledge not from the Sages, but from a prophet. That was debunked, and then you later said that they may have been talking about the water on top of the firmament, and not above it. That was debunked, and then you later said that they knew it from the Tanakh through exegesis. The Tanakh does not mention abundant frozen water in space, so therefore you have just been exposed as severely hypocritical; because you admitted to the Sages' supreme exegetical abilities. LOGICAL FALLACIESThroughout the course of our debate, you displayed logical fallacies (mainly circular reasoning. In other words, blatant unsubstantiated claims). Let us list 3 examples: 1. One of your arguments against the Oral Torah was that "G-d did not give the Israelites an Oral Torah". This is circular reasoning. I am claiming the exact opposite. You cannot use the subject of debate as an argument to further your means.2. You (according to one version of my understanding) argued that the Sages' oral law was an addition to the Torah, which violates the commandment against adding. Again, circular reasoning. Assuming that the laws did come from Moses (And are thus just as, if not more, authoritative), that is not adding at all. I can pull the same card and say that you are SUBTRACTING from the Oral Torah.3. Last: Straw man. You said that I was using the King James version of the Bible, but this is a lie. I was using Mechon Mamre's translation, which is remarkably similar to the King James version on several occasions, but not the same. If you carefully compared the two versions, you would notice the difference. Since you were so eager to catch me making a mistake, you acted before you thought. HISTORICAL INACCURACIESYou have also shown to have very poor knowledge in basic Jewish history. Let's list three examples:1. You said that there were 6,000,000 Jews around Mt Sinai. This is a lie, for there were only about 2,000,000 Jews there.2. You implied that the Torah was given 4000 years ago. Again, a lie. The Torah was given no longer than 3400 years ago.3. You said that the Egyptians knew that there are trillions of stars. Again, a lie. While the Egyptians may have been experts in astronomy, they certainly did not have that knowledge. (to the best of my knowledge) Nobody, other than the Jewish sages, knew of the concept of billions of stars until Galileo Galilei came with his telescope. Why should we listen to a person who is prone to make so many mistakes - ranging from hypocrisy, to logical fallacies, to historical inaccuracies? For the rest, see here: https://docs.google.com...