The United States needs to vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii

We are agreed on the resolution, and placement of the word needs calling for U.S. action, not Hawaiian action. Yet in spite of this, pro commits the non sequitur fallacy [6] of “Any points not based on the needs of the Kingdom of Hawaii, are irrelevant to this resolution.” If for example I need someone else to do something, that is zero assurance of his or her need to do so; in fact needs often conflict. “Insult means to ‘speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse.’ You have continually referred to the Kingdom of Hawaii as a legal state.” While I fail to see how that rises to abuse, or how it is aimed at you personally… Voters, please do a quick word search for the term “legal state” if I have used it even once please mark it against my conduct. At the same time, I suggest throwing out all of pro’s abusive sources since so many of them refer to Hawaii as a state in so many more words than I. And yes, I do not see how legality equals need. In fact needs often conflict with the law… Jean Valjean might need to steal a loaf of bread, but could face 19 years in prison for it [7]. “'Needs' means that the United States ‘ cannot avoid or help doing something’ , they cannot aviod the Hawaiians, nor can they help them. So they need to vacate.” First, welcome to the debate. Second, spell check (it’s not nearly as bad as bolding everything, but I had to reassemble your sentence from across three line segments). Third and most important, the United States is very good at not vacating Hawaii, they have avoided vacating it for over a century. This clearly demonstrates that vacating Hawaii is quite avoidable, thus fails to be a need by pro’s own selected standard. Fourth, the United States has actually done much for Hawaii, uncontested things like things like “drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture…” not to mention national defense, which Hawaii’s own queen admits when faced with threats “it would be impossible for us to make any resistance” (pro’s source). “You have also insulted my sources.” That was actually to counter “by numerous of pro’s own sources, Hawaii is a state, thus either pro is willingly throwing out her own evidence…” I fail to see how calling them out for “abus[ing]” her, is insulting them. “The Kingdom of Hawaii is not Germany, nor is the Kingdom of Hawaii a republic. You can't base a situation on something completely different” Pro is proposing removing at least 90% of the population, with no suggestion of where they would go. Yes unlike Germany it is the majority instead of minorities pro wishes to be disappeared. However, it is still based on perfect purity of blood (do a word search for “Hawaiian blood” if you don’t believe me). Also in spite what pro has implied of genocides only being done by republics, many kingdoms have committed them. Consider the United Kingdom (England) and its long history of brutal conquest; most relevant to this debate would be their genocide against the Native Americans. “That's not true.” This was in response to “no source backs this claimed majority.” Still no source suggesting a majority of Native Hawaiians wanting the U.S. to leave has been provided. “There was never a relationship between the United States government and the Native Hawaiian community” Interesting, as so much of pro’s case centered on how abusive that relationship was/is, nice to see her willingly drop so much of her case; including the U.S. having forced former royalty to sign things. As there is no relationship to worry about, I suppose there must be such minimal interaction with the natives that U.S. presence does not affect the government of either (I find it doubtful, but I am conceding to pro’s claim that there is no relationship to be concerned about). Sadly pro continues to make points dependent on a relationship she claims never existed. “Hawaiians submitted a petition to Congress with 29,000 signatures opposing annexation” This was over a century ago, thus not reflective of current sentiment. In fact those 29,000 signers (assuming no duplicates) are all dead. Whereas a current petition was shown in R1 “only an estimated 50 of the signers (under 3%) were Hawaiian locals (not even to say native peoples) [2].” 50 Hawaiians, that is a very serious minority of them; probably no more than the self proclaimed queen and her staff. “Justification is needed in this debate” That would actually be its own resolution, such as ‘U.S. Occupation is unjust,’ quite different than if the U.S. has a need to forcibly relocate over a million people. If I am incorrect, please point to anywhere in the definitions for need, that justification for actions is mentioned? “The Kingdom of Hawaii has international trade.” Their claimed trade partners include nations that no longer exist. What is the GDP of this trade last year? Any year in the last decade will do, so long as the source is speaking of the Kingdom of Hawaii, not a U.S. state. “Unless you can prove that the Hawaiians weren't doing good without the United States, then I will continue to call your statement irrelevant.” National defense. When faced with any threat “it would be impossible for us to make any resistance.” Without the U.S. there, some random group of pirates could have easily taken over. “The overthrow in 1893 was illegal” Still no connection between past legality, and current needs have been proposed. “Propaganda means ‘information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.’” Pro is staking her intellectual integrity on HawaiianKingdom.org not being a propaganda website by her own provided definition. It’s informational; it’s promoting and publicizing a political cause or point of view; and it most certainly is biased (“prejudice in favor of or against one thing” also pro’s definition). From the same argument line: “As for actions of the United States being biased, this only proves the United States needs to continue on that path” remains an uncontested partial concession by pro. “If the United States doesn't vacate, a civil war might break up between the Americans and the Hawaiians.” As turning Hawaii into a state was not enough to cause such, what is the new action that is even worse than that? Feels like just a South Park reference [8]. However this links back to my R1 point involving the American Civil War “the union in fact felt it must rise to extreme violence, to hold onto what it felt it must continue to have.” Assuming every Native Hawaiian joins the war effort (and none of those are kicked out for not being pure enough), they only have 140k people [3], the U.S. has 100k trained soldiers and support personnel stationed in Hawaii [9]. For this (claimed) military threat to create an actual need to vacate, it must be credible… So dismissing obvious issues of training, how well equipped is the Kingdom of Hawaii’s standing army? Any technological advantages? Any notable military alliances? Any reason at all it’s a credible military threat? The United States faced a real one from the Southern states, and proved that it did not need to vacate them, which remains true to this day (even if unjust). Conclusion: Hawaii has been occupied for well over a century, any actual need to vacate it would have presented itself and been acted upon long ago. In that time the United States has dug in, creating a strong need to remain in place. Nothing is new, save for a Hawaiian currently serving as president (of course pro would remind us that he’s the wrong skin color). I have of course skipped Gish Galloped large quotation sections, which include points such as “…Tanning, certain material used in - Oak bark, catechu and other substances containing…” which pro was not able to defend her inclusion of them in the debate. For issues of morals and legality let’s compare an example from above to the situation. “Jean Valjean might need to steal a loaf of bread, but could face 19 years in prison for it [7],” whereas the United States decided it needed to steal something, and there was only reward for doing so (not one drawback to influence “United States needs” has been provided). Legality had zero influence on the need; much like kingdoms where women are not allowed to drive, the legality does not change their need to do so. Sources: [6] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://southpark.cc.com... [9] http://www.garrison.hawaii.army.mil... Note: Pro is artificially inflating her source count, by creating new links back to the same ones in repetition.