The Instigator
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The United States needs to vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,646 times Debate No: 58937
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (1)

 

RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

Rules:
Please be respectful and nice. Please do not be rude.
No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.
You must agree that this will be a fair debate, using unfair advantages is not allowed.
No use of profanities or swear words.
No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs.
No threats or implications thereof.
No cheating.

My name is Emily Molloy, chairman of the Royalist Tea Party.
For this debate, there will be no acceptance round.
____

British Sandwich Islands, now named 'Hawaii', is a debate on the United States needing to vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii.

The overthrow in 1893 was illegal[1], as formally acknowledged by U.S. Public Law 103-150.[2] The two insurgent governments that followed were neither de facto nor de jure, but self-proclaimed. In 1898, Hawaii was unilaterally seized by the United States through a congressional joint resolution, not a bilateral treaty of cession. Therefore, Hawaii has never been annexed by the United States, but occupied since August 12, 1898.[4] Despite 61 years of transferring portions of its military and civilian population into the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom, and denationalizing the country's inhabitants--both of which are war crimes under international law[3]--only 35% of eligible voters voted for statehood in 1959.[6] Furthermore, this was not a plebiscite, since it did not offer an independence option, as verified by U.S. Public Law 103-150.[7] The Hawaiian people demand their kingdom and sovereignty back[8], the United States needs to vacate immediately.

"In 1945 Hawaii was placed under Article 73 of the UN Charter, under the administering authority of the United States of America. The United States directly violated the "sacred trust" obligations of this article in their relations with Hawaii. This led to the illegal plebiscite vote in 1959, which was used by the United States as the basis for Hawaii statehood, but which failed to provide the option of independence as required by international law, and only allowed American citizens to vote, including many servicemen and their families who had been stationed in Hawaii as part of the military occupation, and excluding those Native Hawaiians who chose not to integrate into America." [9]

"Queen of Hawaii demands independence from 'US occupiers'. The United States is an illegal occupying force that should hand the 132 islands of Hawaii back to the monarchy overthrown more than a century ago, according to members of a Native Hawaiian sovereignty movement." Reported on 2008. [10]

International trade: "Treaty Partners with the Hawaiian Kingdom: Austria, Belgium, Bremen (presently Germany), Denmark, France, Germany, Hamburg (presently Germany), Italy, Hong Kong (former colony of the United Kingdom), Japan, Netherlands, New South Wales (former colony of the United Kingdom), Portugal, Russia, Samoa, the Swiss Confederation, Sweden, Norway, Tahiti (colony of France), United Kingdom, and the United States of America." - http://goo.gl...

Here is the following list from http://goo.gl..., which states the 'Hawaiian Kingdom Civil Code'.

Free by Hawaiian Kingdom Civil Code.

  • Animals, birds, bees, intended for improving breeds.
  • Bags and containers (old) returned, when accompanied by certificate of Hawaiian Consul; books printed in Hawaiian.
  • Catechu (see tanning); coals, copper sheathing and all descriptions of sheathing metal.
  • Diplomatic Representatives - All goods imported for their private use and consumption.
  • Foreign Navies - All supplies when imported and used as such. Foreign Whalers - Merchandise imported by them in accordance with the provisions of sections 569 to 573 of the Civil Code.
  • Gold and silver coins.
  • His Majesty - All goods or other articles imported for his use. Hawaiian Government - All goods or articles imported for the use of the several departments of the Government. Hawaiian Whalers - Oil, bone, fish or other products of the sea, being the catch duly registered Hawaiian vessels. Household effects, old and in use, of persons arriving from abroad; also, the effects, not merchandise, of Hawaiian subjects dying abroad.
  • Iron - All pig iron and plate iron of one-eighth of an inch in thickness and upwards.
  • Models of inventions, if not fitted for use; oak bark (see tanning); plants and seeds, when not intended for sale.
  • Philosophical, chemical and other apparatus for the use of schools and colleges.
  • Returned cargo, being merchandise exported to a foreign country and brought back in the same condition as when exported, accompanied by certificates of Hawaiian Consul.
  • Specie, specimens of botany, mineralogy, geology and other natural sciences imported for the use of schools and colleges.
  • Tanning, certain material used in - Oak bark, catechu and other substances containing "tanning" tools of trade; professional books and instruments in actual use of persons from abroad.
  • Yellow metal.
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..., http://goo.gl...
[7] http://goo.gl...
[8] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl...
[9] http://goo.gl...
[10] http://goo.gl...
Ragnar

Con

As per my usual; contention headings and opponent quotes in bold, source quotes in italic, organizational section headings underlined, and sources continuously numbered between rounds.

Definition:
Need” from Merriam-Webster.com (citing the top three, to avoid this degrading into a game of semantics): “a situation in which someone or something must do or have something,” “something that a person must have,” and “something that is needed in order to live or succeed or be happy” [1].

Argument:
Civil War
Countries need land. The civil war showed that the United Stated is unwilling to allow states to secede, even when a democratic majority (within any one state) insists they should do otherwise. The union in fact felt it must rise to extreme violence, to hold onto what it felt it must continue to have.

There have been secession bids by members every state in the union [2]. Were the United States to honor even half these requests, the union would cease to be, and thus fail to live or succeed. Releasing states would do the exact opposite of addressing the needs of the union.

Democracy
Were the above not enough reason, the fact remains that the majority of the people of Hawaii do not want to leave the union. Those wishing the United States to vacate Hawaii did a WhiteHouse.gov petition, not only did it fail to meet the signature threshold, but only an estimated 50 of the signers (under 3%) were Hawaiian locals (not even to say native peoples) [2].

Further compounding this base problem, only 10% of the population identifies themselves as Native Hawaiian [3]. Thus it is even against the current needs to Hawaii.

Practicality
The Union has been there over a hundred and twenty years. Were Hawaii not American, most of the infrastructure would be. The notion of wanting American influence to vacate, reminds me of a Monty Python skit in which people want Romans to leave, “excluding those concerned with drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture and any other Romans contributing to the welfare of [the native people]” [4, 5].

Also Hawaii is a great vacation spot, which helps support the need for happiness within the Union.

Rebuttals:
Were the resolution different, pro would have a case. Instead most of her points fail to be relevant, at no time demonstrating why it would even be in the United States interest to vacate Hawaii, nor how such would address any needs of the union.

In what follows I shall first point to flaws in the case, and and even flip some of sources to be in my favor.
(pro's sources are labeled with a P before their numbers, to avoid confusion with my own)

The overthrow in 1893 was illegal
Irrelevant, as there is no inherent need to obey the law.
Source [P1]: In Hawaii’s short time of independence, there were numerous “threats to Hawaii's sovereignty,” as to the first fully realized one, their own queen put it best “it would be impossible for us to make any resistance.” They may have lucked out on which nation annexed them.
Source [P2]: Yes the United States did formally apologize over twenty years ago, but much like BP oil spill apology, this changed absolutely nothing. Hawaii is still a US State.

Hawaii has never been annexed by the United States, but occupied
Self-defeating via the source, as occupation lead to annexation.
Source [P4]:
It has been the 50th State of the United States since August 21st, 1959. Since statehood, tourism has been the main industry. Therefore we con conclude it was indeed successfully annexed more than 50 years ago.
Source [P8]: This source directly contradicts pro’s own arguments, outright stating “
Hawaii was annexed by the United States in 1898.”

war crimes
As the previous source implies, the happiness of the union has not been harmed by these supposed “war crimes,” instead Hawaii is a great tourism spot.
Source [P3]: Claiming “international law” should involve a website for an international group such as the U.N. or N.A.T.O., not a biased one seemingly designed specifically to spread anti American propaganda.
Source [P9]: See above.

The Hawaiian people demand their kingdom and sovereignty back
Relevance to the US needs?

Queen of Hawaii demands independence
Relevance?
Plus obeying the whims of people based on their special blood, would hurt US needs. As my opponent has listed Germany multiple times, should we consider well such policies worked there in the 1940’s?

International trade
Relevance?

Hawaiian Kingdom Civil Code
Relevance?

Sources:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.examiner.com...
[3] http://quickfacts.census.gov...
[4] YoutTube video https://www.youtube.com...
[5] http://en.wikiquote.org...

Debate Round No. 1
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

"Countries need land. The civil war showed that the United Stated is unwilling to allow states to secede, even when a democratic majority (within any one state) insists they should do otherwise. The union in fact felt it must rise to extreme violence, to hold onto what it felt it must continue to have. There have been secession bids by members every state in the union. Were the United States to honor even half these requests, the union would cease to be, and thus fail to live or succeed. Releasing states would do the exact opposite of addressing the needs of the union."

This is irrelevant, and it's a case for state to state, this is not for our debate.

"Were the above not enough reason, the fact remains that the majority of the people of Hawaii do not want to leave the union. Those wishing the United States to vacate Hawaii did a WhiteHouse.gov petition, not only did it fail to meet the signature threshold, but only an estimated 50 of the signers (under 3%) were Hawaiian locals (not even to say native peoples). Further compounding this base problem, only 10% of the population identifies themselves as Native Hawaiian. Thus it is even against the current needs to Hawaii."


The majority of the people of Hawaii (Hawaiian blood) do want to leave the United States. A recent new report has been released on July 11th 2014 when "the federal government posed a series of questions to Native Hawaiians, with whom it's seeking to reestablish nation-to-nation status."[1] Americans will have no say in this, the United States invaded a country, and then made Americans vote on it becoming a state, forcing the Hawaiians to have no say. I have already proved this. The Kingdom of Hawaii is not a state, but a country illegally occupied by the United States.


"The Union has been there over a hundred and twenty years. Were Hawaii not American, most of the infrastructure would be. The notion of wanting American influence to vacate, reminds me of a Monty Python skit in which people want Romans to leave, “excluding those concerned with drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture and any other Romans contributing to the welfare of [the native people]

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.

"Also Hawaii is a great vacation spot, which helps support the need for happiness within the Union."

Hawaii has no interest on satisfying the Union just because the American people love Hawaii as a vacation spot, quit trying to insult me if this is what you are trying to do.

The overthrow in 1893 was illegal
This is not irrelevant, and never will be.

Source [P4]: It has been illegally the "50th state" of the United States, as I have already proved this.

war crimes
"As the previous source implies, the happiness of the union has not been harmed by these supposed “war crimes,” instead Hawaii is a great tourism spot.
" The Union has harmed Hawaii, these are still war crimes despite what the American people think. And I have already proved this.

Source [P3]: Claiming “international law” should involve a website for an international group such as the U.N. or N.A.T.O., not a biased one seemingly designed specifically to spread anti American propaganda.

Do not insult my source and call it "biased", what the United States has done to Hawaii is biased. My source only speaks the truth. Bias means "prejudice in favour of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair."

The Hawaiian people demand their kingdom and sovereignty back
The Kingdom of Hawaii does not care for the US needs, they only care for their own country and people.

“Queen of Hawaii demands independence”
This is completely relevant to the Kingdom of Hawaii.

"Plus obeying the whims of people based on their special blood, would hurt US needs."
The Kingdom of Hawaii does not care if it hurts the US needs.

"As my opponent has listed Germany multiple times, should we consider well such policies worked there in the 1940’s?"

"The overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii refers to a coup d'état on January 17, 1893, in which anti-monarchical insurgents within the Kingdom of Hawaii, composed largely of United States citizens, engineered the overthrow of its native monarch"[2]

"On January 16, 1893, United States Marines from the U.S.S Boston surrounded the palace of Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii. The Queen was informed that a “provisional government” composed of American citizens had been established until such time as the island nation could be annexed by the United States. Queen Liliuokalani peacefully yielded power to avoid bloodshed and put her faith in the government of the United States to restore sovereignty to its peaceful Pacific trading partner. The story of how the U.S. came to invade this small island nation is a shameful but largely forgotten chapter in American history."[3]

International trade
This is completely relevant to the Kingdom of Hawaii.

Hawaiian Kingdom Civil Code

This is completely relevant to the Kingdom of Hawaii.

So far my opponent has done nothing but insult and offend me on why the American people love Hawaii and how it would hurt the Union. My opponent is yet to prove that the Kingdom of Hawaii should not be vacated by the United States. 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.

Sources:
[1] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl...
[2] http://goo.gl...
[3] http://goo.gl...





Ragnar

Con

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.

Debate Round No. 2
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

Reminder:
The resolution is “The United States needs to vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii,” not “the United States would really like the Hawaii to stay illegally part of this Union” or even “The people of the United States doesn't want the United States to vacate Hawaii” Any points not based on the needs of the Kingdom of Hawaii, are irrelevant to this resolution.


"Please list the insults aimed at you, as opposed to merely not agreeing with your viewpoint?"
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.

"The grounds for dismissal are groundless. The resolution clearly states the country with a need is the United States."
'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.

"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."
The Kingdom of Hawaii is not legally a state, I have already proven this. Unlike the other states in this Union, Hawaii is a sovereign country.[1] You have also insulted my sources.

"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."
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. "Adolf Hitler, already chancellor, is also elected president of Germany in an unprecedented consolidation of power"[2] The German Army was generally superior in terms of equipment, training and tactics, but that was mainly because the UK, France and US had slacked off and cut defense budgets in the decade leading up to the war.

"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."

That's not true. View it look like this: Should the Secretary propose an administrative rule that would facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community? NOTE: This question says "reestablishment" which would seem to acknowledge that there was once a government to government relationship, i.e. the Kingdom and the United States. Then the question says "relationship with the Native Hawaiian community." There was never a relationship between the United States government and the Native Hawaiian community, so such a relationship cannot be reestablished. The framing of the question simply continues to deny the existence of the Kingdom and the occupation by the United States. The questions which should be asked are: 1. Why is the Secretary of the Interior coming to Hawai'i to ask questions about sovereignty when the Secretary of State is the proper representative to talk about government to government relations? 2. Having apologized for the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom government, what steps should the United States now take to cease its occupation of the Kingdom and facilitate the restoration of the Hawaiian nation? 3. What should be the timetable for the United States to cease its illegal occupation of the Kingdom? "Kale Gumapac was one of the 130 people who signed up to speak in Hilo on the island of Hawaii. “[On] the questions that you raised for everyone to answer. It’s a trap," said Gumapac. "But I’m going to answer it anyway. ‘A‘ole [No]. No to everything that you guys are wanting and everything you are wanting to do. Because we can do it ourselves. We have our own government. We have the Queen, Liliuokalani, and the constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist. You need to learn that constitution so that you can know when to ask permission to come into the Kingdom of Hawaii.” “The Kingdom of Hawaii was never a tribe,” Francis Moku Malani, Jr. testified at the Hilo hearing last week, “We are a sovereign nation.”[3]


"Again, this is disagreeing with your own sources, including fresh ones from this round."

The Kingdom of Hawaii is not legally a state. I have already proven this. But let me continue.... "Hawaiians submitted a petition to Congress with 29,000 signatures opposing annexation, and petitions to the Republic of Hawaii, asking that annexation be put to a public vote. They were never permitted to vote on the issue."[4] "A queen to the end to her people, Lili`uokalani died in 1917, her plea for justice unanswered."[5]

"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."

Justification is needed in this debate, even though this cannot be justified. The Kingdom of Hawaii has international trade. The Kingdom of Hawaii would be fine. )"The Kingdom of Hawai’i was an internationally-recognized monarchy that entered into bilateral treaties of trade and friendship with other countries including the United States (1826), Great Britain (1836), France (1839), Denmark (1846), Hamburg (1848), Sweden and Norway (1852), Tahiti (1853), Bremen (1854), Belgium and Netherlands (1862), Italy and Spain (1863), Swiss Confederation (1864), Russia (1869), Japan (1871), New South Wales (1874), Portugal (1882), Hong Kong (1884), Samoa (1887."[6] Unless you can prove that the Hawaiians weren't doing good without the United States, then I will continue to call your statement irrelevant. The Kingdom of Hawaii is not Rome.

"Zero relevance to the resolution has been demonstrated, mere insistence without reason."
The overthrow in 1893 was illegal and is not irrelevant to this debate, nor its resolution.

"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."
Propaganda means "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." Unless you can prove that my
source is misleading and not true, I'm just going to ignore your insult to my source.

"That sounds a lot like a need to me, as love contributes to happiness.
"
Again, this is not about the United States wanting to keep the Kingdom of Hawaii. This is about the United States needing to vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii. I have already proved that the Kingdom of Hawaii is illegally a state, and now things are getting heated with the Hawaiians and the Americans. So unless you can prove that the Kingdon if Hawaii is legally a state, this debate will not get far on arguments from you. If the United States doesn't vacate, a civil war might break up between the Americans and the Hawaiians. So either way, it's still an upset for the Americans. The United States would rather to do this peacefully, it's 2014.

"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."

So far I have already proved that the United States should vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii due to its illegal occupation of the Kingdom of Hawaii. I have already proved that the Kingdom of Hawaii is being illegally occupied by the Untied States, I have proved the Civil Code of the Kingdom of Hawaii, I have also proved that the Kingdom of Hawaii has international trade, so there's no doubt in my mind they won't be unsuccessful without the United States. Unless you can prove otherwise, this debate will continue to run in run in circles. I ask for you to stop ignoring my arguments.

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...

Ragnar

Con

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.

Debate Round No. 3
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial

Pro

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...;
Ragnar

Con

“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.

Hawaiians keep distance from white girl

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...

Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Astal3 2 years ago
Astal3
All I said was that her sources weren't being atificially inflated. I didn't read through every source and as rings said most was unrelated gibberish. Hence the reason I said to put the link by your argument so the readers can see your logic. You have an issue with cherry picking arguments.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
There was a bad formatting error in my final round (as much as I don't think my final round even needs to be read), as such I shall not contest any S&G vote against me.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
01. It doesn't matter if I change the words, Hawaii is not legally a state. 02. 25,000 petitions were indeed long time ago, this better helps my case. 03. Of coruse there would be some problems, it's common sense to also assume this, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done and that it can't be done.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
My sources are just fine. Even Astal3 agrees.
Posted by rings48 2 years ago
rings48
Pro changed sources to say kingdom of Hawaii instead of state. Not cool. Yeah I do read your debates and catch that your sources are unfairly used. 25,000 petition was from 1980s and some of your sources even say the problems with unannexing Hawaii and how it's a bad idea. You have validatory bias (has a better name), you only read/cite the parts that help your argument.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
I have numbered my sources to my arguments. I only repeat my source if that argument goes unanswered. Apologies though.
Posted by Astal3 2 years ago
Astal3
I looked at most of her sources. Royalist I would advise you put each source by the paragraph you use it. I believe it is appropritate for her to use the same link across multiple rounds. But like I said since you just spam the sources at the bottom it makes it harder to fact check and see if the sources relate to your arguments. There was only one account where she used the same source twice in the same round. There was two sources where it was questionable to whether they related to the debate but once again it is hard to be certain due to the formatting. The source mishaps were minor and even though I may not agree with her politically her sources overall are fine as far as I can see.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
I have talked to Playallin, she has adviced me to leave but I have decided to not leave. At the moment she says she will not continue with debate.org, but I on the other hand will. I have not plagiarized, I have not votebombed, I have not created any fake accounts. This account right here is the only account I signed up for, any other accounts are not from me. I will give this site a last chance and try to reach out to Airmax once again. I dismiss the recent slander that was aimed at me as false. Please disregard the previous link.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
Though he did tell me in order to change my username I would have to start new, I don't know why and disagree with this.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by rings48 2 years ago
rings48
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficialRagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and sources to Con. Pro edited sources and cherry picked quotes. Pro's sources typically worked against her and basically refuted Pro's argument. When you cite a source, you cite the whole source; not just the part you quoted. Con has formatting error in last argument that cuts off half his argument.