The United States needs to vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii

“I urge a Pro vote as I feel I had the most arguments and conduct here.” Quantity without quality is meaningless, especially when so little of it was relevant to affirming the resolution. Misconduct Pro has been lying about the content of her sources, editing quotes (without notation) to say what she wants them to say, rather than what they actually said. Example: “‘Two-thirds live in the Kingdom of Hawaii’” The source actually specified state, “Two-thirds live in the State of Hawaii” [10]. Pro is also (through malice or ignorance) trying to cheat the character limit, by linking her own blog posts. This blog has no date stamps, thus she can edit it at any time to fool unsuspecting voters. Pro has also begun intentional source bombing, by tossing on random links after her sources, without connection to her argument points. Insults Rather than presenting logical reasoning that the U.S. has any need, pro makes a weak pathos appeal (appeal to Emotion fallacy) about how it’s not fair that such a reason does not exist. “my opponent has insulted me by claiming my sources are ‘biased’,” Actually I proved they fit pro’s own definition of bias. In particular HawaiianKingdom.org fitting pro’s own definition of mere propaganda. Instead of trying to refute any way such does not fit (her definition of propaganda does not require the material to be lies, therefore I do not need to prove inaccuracies), she complains because it’s apparently rude to call something by name. “insulted me by claiming the Kingdom of Hawaii is a state” Later in the same round to answer how it was aimed at her, she admits it was not “Personally, no.” “‘…proves the United States needs to continue on that path.’ is another insult” Let’s review this logic… Pro claimed “what the United States has done to Hawaii is biased.” Pro gave the clear definition of bias as “prejudice in favor of or against one thing.” Instead of pointing out any way this is not “an uncontested partial concession by pro,” she complained that the result of U.S. being biased (her accusation) is insulting to her. Legality That people do not need to obey the law remains uncontested. Therefore… “the Kingdom of Hawaii is not legally a state.” Irrelevant. Assuming it is illegal, such has failed to give the U.S. any need to vacate it for a half century, no change has been cited to alter that. “Bloodshed” Believe it or not, this was pro’s entire reply to “what is the new action that is even worse than that?” So what bloodshed? None even suggested. “What the United States is doing here is illegal” And still no relevance to needs has been demonstrated. “If Con doesn't answer the legal status of the Kingdom of Hawaii, this will be a clear vote for Pro.” If any voter believes this, please include in your vote against me a quote from pro showing why people need to obey the law (I will not contest any argument vote that includes such). Civil War “attacks will probably break out.” Unsupported claim. Not a single news story on such an attack or missing persons. “According to the U.S. Census Bureau report” Instead of the Census Bureau, pro has linked Wikipedia. I on the other hand did link the Census Bureau [3]. “The people who will fight for independence … it only takes 3% to start a revolution” So pro has dropped all issues of equipment, technological advantages, military alliances, and any reason at all to believe it’s a credible military threat. Basically they really need to not go to war with an international superpower. Worse pro has finally at least implied the size of her claimed majority “3%.” Needs of Native Hawaiians: Skippable, but to humor pro… “The majority of native Hawaiians reside in HawaiE9;i, California, Nevada and Washington.” [sic] Pro is now proposing harming the Native Hawaiians, by forcibly relocating nearly half of them who live in the continental U.S.. “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....” Apparently (according to pro) Hawaii was so incompetent at trade, it never established relationships with trade partners (except maybe abusive ones)… Pro’s claim was “There was never a relationship,” now she changes her mind, again. “such trade can be reestablished” This was in reply to “Their claimed trade partners include nations that no longer exist.” “Yes, it did claim the majority” No quote from any source about a majority has been provided, at best pro has raised the total number in support of it from 50 to 130 “130 people signed up to testify,” less than a thousandth of their population. However, from pro’s previous source we learned they generally do not want their own government separate from the U.S. government “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.’” Sources: [10] Pro’s link, with timestamp http://en.wikipedia.org...