Challenge Match: beezzer vs tothetenthpower - "A question to Hawaiian Independence"

Please allow me to begin by thanking my opponent, tothetenthpower, the members of ATS, and the staff and fighters of the Debate forum for providing us with both venue and audience. You are all always appreciated.
These debates are the refined essence of what we all do here. To participate, regardless of outcome, always makes us better people. Thank you all for that.

To the debate!

Recent events in the United States and across the world has planted a small kernel in my mind.

Imagine a sovereign nation living under it's own rule and ruler. Imagine another nation that, perhaps due to a late sense of Manifest Destiny, wants and succeeds in overthrowing that nations rulers and imposes it's own sense of law and rule. It takes over that nation and envelopes it into it's own.

This happened not recently, but in 1893. Hawaii and it's neighboring islands were taken over.

Redress of the overthrow of native americans has been addressed by reservations and indian nations within the borders of the United States.

Yet the people of Hawaii still live under the rule of a nation that overthrew it 119 years ago.

A difficult first step might be this.

The logical basis is that undoing of the 1893 illegal occupation might legally necessitate a return to the pre-illegal-occupation government.

en.wikipedia.org...

But an acknowlegement should be made.

America has stated that it does respect other cultures and heritages. I say let America put action to those words and address the independence of Hawaii. This reflection of American Imperialism should be ended.

I now will turn over the discussion to tothetenthpower to provide an alternate to my arguement.

Thank you.

Other source
en.wikipedia.org...
www.hawaii-nation.org...

Firstly I'd like to thank the members of the debate forum for making this all possible. I also would like to thank my opponent Beezzer for this opportunity.

To be Sovereign or Subservient

Before I can address the issue of independence for any particular state, we must first look closely at the ability of that state to generate revenue for itself among other things.
Let’s first take a look at the general stats for Hawaii.

Population: 1,374,810 ( as per 2011 est.) (40th)
House Hold Income - $63, 746 (5th)

This shows that although Hawaii isn’t very populous by comparison, it ranks 5th in overall median income. Hawaii is also very dependant on taxation, and cost of living is only a smidgen less than some major US cities.

6.7% lower than New York City & 3.6% lower than San Francisco.

Hawaii also ranks 39th in the nation in GDP.

So although the idea of an independent Hawaii is quite nice, the logistics of the entire affair would be a utter nightmare. As I will explain later, Hawaiians would be left even more subservient to the United States, or other nations by attempting to ‘ go it alone’.

I will give the floor back to my esteemed opponent.

Sources:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Point 1. If Hawaii were to gain independence, I'm sure that a trade agreement, financial incentive (to keep the U bases there) can be arranges.

Point 2. Allowing Hawaii to regain it's freedom would enable other countries along the Asian block freer access to invest and pour capital into the new country.

I think these two issues alone would enable Hawaii to thrive.

The only stumbling block would be the reluctance of the US to cede it's imperialism on another country.

Strategic agreements have been made with German, British, Turkish, Spanish, (etc) governments that allowed a military presence and financial incentive without the US having to resort to overthrowing the sitting government.

Why should Hawaii be any different?

Wonderful questions, and points, allow me to address them.

Point 1 & 2: Even with trade agreements and financial incentives, one must take into account the following:

1. Energy independence, dependence.
2. Revenue.
3. Socio-economic conditions as a result.

Strategic agreements work with other nations because they already have the above in place. They are able to produce their own energy, provide revenue for various social programs that a single state could not do on its own.

Take public works for example. Hawaii relies heavily on government subsidized projects in order to provide social services and infrastructure to its citizens. What happens when those federal tax dollars cease coming? What would Hawaii be able to offer other nations, including the new separated United States for services rendered?

Regardless of how we would like things to be able to progress, the simple fact is that Hawaii, can’t support itself in the 21st century, without having a Federal Government to assist it.

So as we can see, Hawaii would end up in a much worse place, owing services and money to unknown entities.

What if they decided that trade agreements with North Korea, or China were more enticing that those of the United states? There are many factors to look at when attempting to determine the viability of a new nation.

Island nations do exist. Their economic base has been restructured, but I believe that the islands of Hawaii could survive.

I would like to redirect, though, from what my worthy opponent has been stating, and not just simply dicuss the fiscal reasons why independence might possible be untenable, but refocus on the moral obligations that a government has to a population that it over-threw.

For a government to stand up for rights of it's people, for a government to stand up for the rights of indigenous people in other parts of the globe, yet deny the same rights to people it has oppressed, is morally wrong.

It is hypocritical of the US government to talk of soverign rights of any nation what it has ignored the soverign rights of a people to it's own benefit.

We can discuss the financial aspects if we introduce reparations to the native people of the Hawaiian islands. For over a century, the US has inhibited the rights of an island nation for it's own benefit.

I would like to thank my worthy opponent for agreeing to tis debate and ask forgiveness for the brevity of my posts. In my defense, I felt the issues did not require long-cited posts but a focus on the moral obligations of such a great nation.

Thank you.

Island nations do exist. Their economic base has been restructured, but I believe that the islands of Hawaii could survive.

Without the adequate financial data to back up that claim, I must disagree with the statement.

For a government to stand up for rights of it's people, for a government to stand up for the rights of indigenous people in other parts of the globe, yet deny the same rights to people it has oppressed, is morally wrong.

I agree enitrely, however one must look within it's own borders before it can look outside of them. Take the Native American population for example. The US effectively annexed that culture into it's own, set up open aired prisons for them ( see reservations) and left them to their own devices.

It is hypocritical of the US government to talk of soverign rights of any nation what it has ignored the soverign rights of a people to it's own benefit.

The problem overall being that in my view, the United States is doing Hawaii a favor by supporting it the way it does. As shown in the posts above, Hawaii would be unable to support itself as a nation, without the guidance and assistance of a powerful outside party.

Perhaps some Hawaiians feel as though the restrictions imposed by them by the Federal Government of the United States are not ok and that they should have more freedom.

I would suggest in that case, they invoke state's rights with those issues and challenge them within the already established court system. Contrary to popular belief many issues are adequately resolved via this media.

In closing I would like to thank Beezzer for this excellent debate, the judges who will be participating and the rest of the ATS membership for reading.

~Tenth

Thiis Debate was a TIE. The tie had to be broken by bringing in a third judge. That means it was really close and might have gone either way. I thank both debaters for showing us that a good debate can also be had with fewer words.

Both opening statements are good. While Beezzer brings forward the morality issue, Tothetenthpower opens with facts. Could Hawaii be self sufficient? Core points for this debate and thus the first round is his.

Beezzer rebounds in the second round with great questions, questions that are equally met with great answers by Tothetenthpower. Brief and solid posts by both debaters. This one is a tie. In the third round, Beezzer comes back with the morality issue but I feel that (as mentioned by his opponent) the claim lacks back up. Without that vital information, it simply becomes a personal opinion. Tothetenthpower also states personal opinions such as “in my view,”, “perhaps”, “I would suggest” making both closing statements interesting but missing the mark in convincing us one way or another, with concrete facts. Both second and third rounds being judged ties, it leaves the first round which favored Tothethenthpower.

This was a good debate but both challengers could have taken advantage of character counts to profit their respective sides. Tothetenthpower wins this debate. But by an inch. Thumbs up to both debaters.

beezzer presents his argument in round one, bringing to our attention the illegal occupation the Hawaiian Islands, and the possibility of their independence. In round two, he furthers his position by stating that trade agreements and Asian markets would allow a thriving Hawaiian economy as an independent nation. He points out several example where this has been successfully accomplished. Round three brings his position full circle by talking about the moral obligations of government, and the necessity to respect the sovereign rights of an independent nation.

tothetenthpower provides his rebuttal in round one by focusing on the financial aspects of independence. His statistics have a nice bite to them, leading to the impression that independence would be fiscally irresponsible. He continues in round two by stating that energy independence among other factors are vital to agreements with other countries, and finishes the round by reminding us that financial agreements may come from sources that are not allies of the United States. In round three he falters a bit in such a closely matched debate by invoking the injustices done to the Native Americans, which lends support to his opponent's position of needing to respect the sovereign rights of independent nations. He does recover nicely by stating that a well established court system handles grievances in a judicial manner.

A debate such as this cannot yield a clear cut winner. Both opponents state their positions well, and argue convincingly, so decisions leading to a winner encompass both the content of the debate, as well as how fluently it is presented. I would call the debate a tie, but barring that inability, I'll pick....

beezzer as the winner, by the narrowest of margins.

I don't think any one of them won but I have to choose, right?

In the final post beezer argues that the natives rights have been ignored. Tothetenthpower responds to this with:

"I would suggest in that case, they invoke state's rights with those issues and challenge them within the already established court system. Contrary to popular belief many issues are adequately resolved via this media".

That, and also Tenths saying that Hawaiians are economically dependent on the U.S. rings overall slightly more true to me than what beezer presented. I think Tenth wins the debate but only ever so slightly.

All in all I think both debaters could have put a little more effort into their debates. This read more like a coffee conversation than a debate.

TotheTenthPower wins this debate.