The United States needs to vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii

As per my usual; contention headings and opponent quotes in bold, source quotes in italic, organizational section headings underlined, and sources continuously numbered between rounds. Definition: “Need” from Merriam-Webster.com (citing the top three, to avoid this degrading into a game of semantics): “a situation in which someone or something must do or have something,” “something that a person must have,” and “something that is needed in order to live or succeed or be happy” [1]. Argument: Civil War Countries need land. The civil war showed that the United Stated is unwilling to allow states to secede, even when a democratic majority (within any one state) insists they should do otherwise. The union in fact felt it must rise to extreme violence, to hold onto what it felt it must continue to have. There have been secession bids by members every state in the union [2]. Were the United States to honor even half these requests, the union would cease to be, and thus fail to live or succeed. Releasing states would do the exact opposite of addressing the needs of the union. Democracy Were the above not enough reason, the fact remains that the majority of the people of Hawaii do not want to leave the union. Those wishing the United States to vacate Hawaii did a WhiteHouse.gov petition, not only did it fail to meet the signature threshold, but only an estimated 50 of the signers (under 3%) were Hawaiian locals (not even to say native peoples) [2]. Further compounding this base problem, only 10% of the population identifies themselves as Native Hawaiian [3]. Thus it is even against the current needs to Hawaii. Practicality The Union has been there over a hundred and twenty years. Were Hawaii not American, most of the infrastructure would be. The notion of wanting American influence to vacate, reminds me of a Monty Python skit in which people want Romans to leave, “excluding those concerned with drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture and any other Romans contributing to the welfare of [the native people]” [4, 5]. Also Hawaii is a great vacation spot, which helps support the need for happiness within the Union. Rebuttals: Were the resolution different, pro would have a case. Instead most of her points fail to be relevant, at no time demonstrating why it would even be in the United States interest to vacate Hawaii, nor how such would address any needs of the union. In what follows I shall first point to flaws in the case, and and even flip some of sources to be in my favor. (pro's sources are labeled with a P before their numbers, to avoid confusion with my own) “The overthrow in 1893 was illegal” Irrelevant, as there is no inherent need to obey the law. Source [P1]: In Hawaii’s short time of independence, there were numerous “threats to Hawaii's sovereignty,” as to the first fully realized one, their own queen put it best “it would be impossible for us to make any resistance.” They may have lucked out on which nation annexed them. Source [P2]: Yes the United States did formally apologize over twenty years ago, but much like BP oil spill apology, this changed absolutely nothing. Hawaii is still a US State. “Hawaii has never been annexed by the United States, but occupied” Self-defeating via the source, as occupation lead to annexation. Source [P4]: “It has been the 50th State of the United States since August 21st, 1959. Since statehood, tourism has been the main industry.” Therefore we con conclude it was indeed successfully annexed more than 50 years ago. Source [P8]: This source directly contradicts pro’s own arguments, outright stating “Hawaii was annexed by the United States in 1898.” “war crimes” As the previous source implies, the happiness of the union has not been harmed by these supposed “war crimes,” instead Hawaii is a great tourism spot. Source [P3]: Claiming “international law” should involve a website for an international group such as the U.N. or N.A.T.O., not a biased one seemingly designed specifically to spread anti American propaganda. Source [P9]: See above. “The Hawaiian people demand their kingdom and sovereignty back” Relevance to the US needs? “Queen of Hawaii demands independence” Relevance? Plus obeying the whims of people based on their special blood, would hurt US needs. As my opponent has listed Germany multiple times, should we consider well such policies worked there in the 1940’s? “International trade” Relevance? “Hawaiian Kingdom Civil Code” Relevance? Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.examiner.com... [3] http://quickfacts.census.gov... [4] YoutTube video [5] http://en.wikiquote.org...