Puerto Virgo Should Become A State

I appreciate my opponent responding for this round.My opponent's first argument is that race should have nothing to do with politics. Ideally, yes, but southern states are obligated to create minority-majority districts (ie. districts designed entirely because of race) in both levels of government. Race is indeed a part of politics, and suddenly turning a racial majority into a racial minority that will have no impact on government is simply not a good idea.Secondly, my opponent argues the Virgin Islands would gain much by becoming a state with Puerto Rico. He offers no evidence to support this and completely ignores that the Virgin Islands would have only 1 representative and 1 senator in the Puerto Rican legislature and would lose the representation they have in Congress. They would lose the current autonomy they have and become completely dependent on Puerto Rico, and island that is vastly different racially and culturally, to fill their needs. They should receive representation, but making them lose even the autonomy they have right now is simply not worth it.Thirdly, my opponent asserts 61% of Puerto Ricans favored statehood in the 2012 referendum. This is a political line, but is blatantly false. 1,776,000 Puerto Ricans participated in the referendum. Out of Puerto Ricans that specified an answer to the second part of the referendum (statehood, associated free state, independence), 61% (824,000) did indeed select 'statehood'. However, 480,000 voters (or 26% of those who voted) left that part of the ballot blank in protest the ballot's options. When these voters are factored in, the '61%' total drops to only 45% - as I established earlier.[1] 824,000 'pro' voters out of 1,726,000 total voters is certainly not a majority. I also notice my opponent ignored my statement that Puerto Ricans, in the same election they supposedly supported statehood, elected an anti-statehood governor. Simply put, there is no consensus for statehood and it is wrong to act until there is.Fourthly, my opponent seems to be confused by my argument. Instead of tying to contradict my factual statements regarding the status of the Virgin Islands in Puerto Virgo (that the Virgin Islands would not be entitled to very many representatives at the state level and at the federal level they wouldn't even have one representative), he argues that statehood is great even if you lose all political power. If he'd be fine with being a cultural and political minority with little to no representation, OK, but I highly doubt Virgin Islanders would want to give up sovereignty for a vote that won't even be able to do anything.Fifth, my opponent seems to think political parties are part of my argument - they are not. The political system is part of my argument, and precedence has been that we don't mess up the political system by swinging the balance of power through admitting states. It's the weakest argument here, but it's still an argument.Now, onto my opponent's own arguments.First, he states Puerto Ricans and Virgin Islanders are taxed without representation. I agree with this, although it is worth noting that neither Puerto Ricans nor Virgin Islanders pay federal income tax. Secondly, he notes that they are governed federally by officials they have not elected: I also agree with this. However, neither of these arguments explain why the Virgin Islands should sacrifice their autonomy and what little congressional representation they have to become a cultural and political minority on an island they frankly have little in common with. References1. https://en.wikipedia.org...