The United States needs to vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii

Reminder: The resolution is “The United States needs to vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii,” not “Hawaii would really like the United States to pack up and leave,” or even “The Kingdom of Hawaii needs the United States to vacate it.” Any points not based on the needs of the United States, are irrelevant to the resolution pro has selected. Rebuttals to red text: “So far my opponent has done nothing but insult and offend me” Please list the insults aimed at you, as opposed to merely not agreeing with your viewpoint? “My opponent is yet to prove that the Kingdom of Hawaii should not be vacated by the United States.” Moving the Goalpost fallacy, as I need only disprove the (unsupported) claim that the United States has a need to vacate. “I dismiss my opponent's ‘arguments’, as well with his sources because he has done nothing but make claims of it hurting the Union, hurting the American people, etc. This has nothing to do with the American people, this has everything to do with the Hawaiians.” The grounds for dismissal are groundless. The resolution clearly states the country with a need is the United States. Further I have proven several Hawaiian needs, such as not to suffer the military force the United States musters against rebels (as seen in the civil war). Defense of my points: Civil War… “This is irrelevant, and it's a case for state to state, this is not for our debate.” By numerous of pro’s own sources, Hawaii is a state, thus either pro is willingly throwing out her own evidence (lowering her arguments to mere unwarranted assertions), or else is not challenging any of the points I made under the Civil War heading. Democracy… “The majority of the people of Hawaii (Hawaiian blood) do want to leave the United States.” Again claims of special blood trumping all else, which I already pointed such leads to genocide (as seen in “Germany… 1940’s”), which is quite harmful for everyone. Also no source backs this claimed majority. However from pro’s own source “The federal government posed a series of questions to Native Hawaiians, with whom it's seeking to reestablish nation-to-nation status. The answer it received, to all, was a resounding ‘no.’” Pro’s own source insists Hawaii does not want to be treated by the United States as an independent nation. “The Kingdom of Hawaii is not a state,” Again, this is disagreeing with your own sources, including fresh ones from this round. Practicality… “This is irrelevant, Hawaii is a country being illegally occupied by the United States, as I have already proved. There's no justification on this.” Justification is not needed in this debate, it is about if the United States needs to take an action. Further, claiming the needs of Hawaiians for such things as “drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture…” as “irrelevant” pretty much concedes any points based around their needs. “The overthrow in 1893 was illegal” … “This is not irrelevant, and never will be.” Zero relevance to the resolution has been demonstrated, mere insistence without reason. “Do not insult my source and call it ‘biased’, what the United States has done to Hawaii is biased.” No defense of the source as anything other than being “designed specifically to spread anti American propaganda.” No backup source from any international authority to support the claimed violations. Merely a request not to insult it, or call it out on being biased… As for actions of the United States being biased, this only proves the United States needs to continue on that path. “the American people love Hawaii as a vacation spot” That sounds a lot like a need to me, as love contributes to happiness. Various points… “This is completely relevant to the Kingdom of Hawaii.” And such pointless bits as “…Tanning, certain material used in - Oak bark, catechu and other substances containing…” remain irrelevant to the resolution, not to mention any possible related resolution I can think of.