The Belief that Sikhism is Based on True Prophecy is Contrary to Judaism

I believe my opponent's argument is predicated on a few misconceptions. a) G-d removes "the spirit of uncleanliness" (not idolatry) and prophecy forever. My opponent argued that if idolatry was only removed temporarily, then prophecy, its counterweight, should have been removed temporarily. Prophecy, however, is actually the counterweight to the above-mentioned "spirit of uncleanliness", viz. the pervasive lust for idolatry, which re-occurs all throughout Tanach. This desire was the main opponent of most prophets. b) The Oral Law is inherently not meant to be set in stone. Yes, with a strong link from generation to generation, you will pass down the original material, more or less intact. But the Oral Law is meant to have additions as new situations arise. This is the venue for new problems to be solved and collected into the body of Halacha. c) One cannot refute a primary source document by saying, "This quote from Rabbi Ovadiah is false. " He is relating what he witnessed in the Karaite communities! And if, on the other hand, the veracity of my quotation is being questioned, here is the link to the book: . http://www.amazon.com... . My quotes were taken from pages 39 and 40-- photocopied here: . https://docs.google.com... d) Karaites, in fact, do have Rabbis-- a Google search of "Karaite Rabbis" yields a wikipedia page of them-- and, sure enough, they have commentaries on Tanach. Proof of the afore-mentioned Yefet ben Ali's commentary can be found in the commentary of the ibn Ezra, on Exodus 4:4, 5:5, and 7:29, for example. This is the link for 7:29: . http://www.sefaria.org.... e) The Oral Law does not merely "provide the answers". The Gemara rarely decides a Halachic debate, but it always breaks down the opinions into their source, their reasoning, etc. , so as to flesh out the argument. The very first Mishnah showcases the desire for discussion: "From when do we start to say the Shema at night? From the time that the priests enter to eat their Terumah (after a period of impurity). " The Gemara, then, must discuss: When do priests enter to eat their Terumah? Is it on the eighth day, when they bring their sacrifice? Is it at nightfall just after the seventh day? The Oral Law, although it does provide a large help in getting the answers, mostly did not provide the answers until the Middle Ages, when all the arguments were settled for certain. f) My opponent, rather than agreeing with Ketuvim"s demonstrably false assertion, has come to terms with the fact that the Tanach contains ambiguities. My opponent states: "Yes, G-d would put ambiguities in the Tanakh to encourage deeper study- another reason why the Oral Torah cannot be genuine, because it gives the answers to you, and expects you to put your faith in a few rabbis. In Karaism they study the Tanakh looking for genuine Objective answers, rather than just saying "we don"t have the answers, so let"s make some up. " This quote belies a deep misunderstanding of the process of deciding Halacha. The Oral Torah is almost completely based on verses; it expounds extra words, abnormal letters, or strange constructs, that a perfect G-d must have had a reason for. The answers given all are deeply rooted in the text. In fact, when arguments did come up over Halacha, the arguments were almost always regarding verses. The answers were not "made up", as my opponent would like to suggest. g) My opponent writes: "Rabbinical Traditions date back to 300 AD? If it was genuine- it would date back to 2000 BC, we can date the Written Tanakh that long ago. " In my 300 *BCE* comment, I was merely talking about the oldest active speaker. However, there are laws passed down as "Halacha L"Moshe MiSinai", a law dating back to Moses at Sinai. Thus, the Oral Torah does date back to the time of Moses-- c.1300 BCE. I might add on this last point that the Karaite traditions date back no further than 650 CE. Perhaps it is my opponent who must defend himself on the point of authenticity.