The United States needs to vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii

Before I begin, I would just like to begin by pointing out that my opponent has insulted me by claiming my sources are "biased", he has also insulted me by claiming the Kingdom of Hawaii is a state and by saying "As for actions of the United States being biased, this only proves the United States needs to continue on that path." is another insult, as well in the name of justice and democracy. This is just disrespectful.I would also just like to bring in more evidence, proof for my opponent as it appears he's not going to respect the sources I've been providing.... I'm giving my opponent a last chance, in hopes of him being able to argue that Hawaii is legally a state, even though it's quite clear that the Kingdom of Hawaii is not legally a state. As I said before, and have proved, the Kingdom of Hawaii was invaded by the United States, then the United States voted on it becoming a state, denying the Hawaiians to have a say. This is a clear violation.The following information comes from: http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org...___ Usurping Hawaiian sovereignty, U.S. President McKinley signed into United States law An Act To provide a government for the Territory of Hawai'i on April 30, 1900 (31 U.S. Stat. 141); and on March 18, 1959, U.S. President Eisenhower signed into United States law An Act To provide for the admission of the State of Hawai'i into the Union (73 U.S. Stat. 4). These laws not only have no extraterritorial effect, but stand in direct violation of the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and the Restoration Agreement, being international compacts, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV. "We are agreed on the resolution, and placement of the word needs calling for U.S. action, not Hawaiian action." Again, what we agreed was that the U.S needs to vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii, 'needs' means "cannot avoid or help doing something.", and "require (something) because it is essential or very important." What the United States is doing here is illegal, and I assure you this is not irreverent. "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." Personally, no. it's still considered to be disrespectful though. This is a country we are talking about, that was invaded by the United States.... Unless you can prove otherwise. "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)." Sorry about that, I don't understand how that happened. It was fine before I submited it. No need to be rude about it though. Yes, they have been avoiding it, but now, as I have proved, they no longer can. And if they will, attacks will probably break out. The Kingdom of Hawaii was doing just fine without the Untied State, as for defense, as I stated before, she didn't want bloodshed to break out and have Hawaiian peace to be recognised as such, but now times have changed. "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." No, it's asking if Hawaii is really a state. I don't consider you calling me out on this abuse, but did consider it disrespectful when you called my sources biased. "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" "According to the U.S. Census Bureau report for 2000, there are 401,162 people who identified themselves as being "native Hawaiian" alone or in any combination. 140,652 people identified themselves as being "native Hawaiian" alone. The majority of native Hawaiians reside in HawaiE9;i, California, Nevada and Washington. Two-thirds live in the Kingdom of Hawaii while the other one-third is scattered among other states, with a high concentration in California."[1] I wouldn't consider it removing at least 90% of the population. "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." You mean the British Empire?[2] This is again completely different as the Kingdom of Hawaii is not an Empire. "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." Yes, it did claim the majority. But here's a different source for you if you don't believe me."In the heart of Keaukaha, one of the most Hawaiian communities on one of the most Hawaiian of the islands, speakers were polite but firm: We will create our own government, thank you very much."[3] "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" I have not dropped my case, please do not fasely make such claims like this. There has been international trade with the Kingdom of Hawaii, but never a "relationship", other than the one being forced. I have already proved this.... "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." The Kingdom of Hawaii has a Constitution[7], such trade can be reestablished once the United States vacates. "Without the U.S. there, some random group of pirates could have easily taken over." "The Hawaiian army and navy developed from the warriors of Kona under Kamehameha I, who unified Hawaii in 1810."[4] "Still no connection between past legality, and current needs have been proposed." Again, this has everything to do with this resolution. "Pro is staking her intellectual integrity on HawaiianKingdom.org not being a propaganda website" Propaganda would mean the information is not true, but when for a fact the information I'm providing is true. Unless you can prove otherwise.... "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" Bloodshed. "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)." The people who will fight for independence. Keep in mind that prior to the American Revolution the majority of colonists thought of themselves as British, respected English law and did not want to rebel against their King or change their agreements by force[5], it only takes 3% to start a revolution[6]. Conclusion: The Kingdom of Hawaii has been occupied for well over a century, it's time for the United States to vacate this country. The time has come. My opponent has made false claims of my information not being true, yet refuses to prove his claims. If Con doesn't answer the legal status of the Kingdom of Hawaii, this will be a clear vote for Pro. This isn't about the needs of the United States, but the needs the Kingdom of Hawaii. This can no longer be ignored by the United States. Either way, I urge a Pro vote as I feel I had the most arguments and conduct here. Sources: [1] http://goo.gl... [2] http://goo.gl... [3] http://goo.gl... [4] http://goo.gl... [5] http://goo.gl... [6] http://goo.gl... [7] http://goo.gl... Recognition of Hawaiian Independence: http://goo.gl... Reestablished: http://goo.gl... I thank Con for for this debate. "I owe no allegiance to the Provisional Government established by a minority of the foreign population …. nor to anyone save the will of my people and the welfare of my country." - Queen Liliuokalani of Hawai’i after the overthrow of the monarchy by US Marines in 1893. In the heart of Keaukaha, one of the most Hawaiian communities on one of the most Hawaiian of the islands, speakers were polite but firm: They will create their own government, thank you very much. - See more at: http://westhawaiitoday.com...; In the heart of Keaukaha, one of the most Hawaiian communities on one of the most Hawaiian of the islands, speakers were polite but firm: They will create their own government, thank you very much. - See more at: http://westhawaiitoday.com... In the heart of Keaukaha, one of the most Hawaiian communities on one of the most Hawaiian of the islands, speakers were polite but firm: They will create their own government, thank you very much. - See more at: http://westhawaiitoday.com...;