I'm afraid the whole "historical discussion" part of the thread will get a bit out of control, so a mod can actually move my post here and a few other relevant ones to the appropriate section. That being said:
Macedon was a separate country from the city states of Greece
So were all Greek city-states. All Greek city-states were independent polities with completely different governments, political life etc.
Macedon was a centralized kingdom
So was Epirus and to a certain degree Sparta. Not sure how being a city-state rules out being a kingdom at all, frankly. Kingdom in ancient Greek parlour means simply a state led by a king, that doesn't necessitate not being centered around a city nor does it exclude possible expansion. Was the Roman kingdom not a kingdom because it was centered around Rome?
Alexander had to prove his Greek heritage when he arrived to compete at the Olympic games. Why? Because they Greeks didn't consider him Greek! - aka: one of the Hellenes, one of them.
This is incorrect. The "proof of Greekness" was a standard test taken by virtually all Olympic athletes. This was done mostly to rule out the possibility of Greek states bringing barbarian competitors that could out-do their Greek counterparts in some practices. The first Macedonian king to prove his "Greekness" was Alexander I, so there was a very clear consensus on whether the Macedonians (or at least their nobility) were Greek.
The official language of Macedon was Greek but they didn't speak clear Greek but a dialect of it.
This is very misleading. Yes, Macedonians did speak a dialect of Greek, but a) their dialect was consistent on the dialect continuum i.e. it was similar to their neighbours; Epirus, Thessaly and the Aeolian Greeks and b) there was no "Greek language", every part of the Greek world had a distinct dialect. Athens and Sparta also spoke very different Greek from each other.
Of course the implication of your statement is kind of baffling. So because they spoke a dialect of Greek and not "Greek proper" (which didn't exist), that made them less Greek by extension? Are English people from Liverpool not English because they speak differently from the people from London? That would be quite absurd.
True, Alexander considered himself a Greek but the Greeks didn't see him as one, no matter his love of their culture, religion and traditions.They called him a barbarian, because Greeks considered Macedonia a barbarian country, not a Greek one.
You are confusing Alexander with his father Philip. Also, the general attitude towards Philip was skewed in states like Athens due to wartime propaganda. The guy behind the popular "Philip is a barbarian" comments is Demosthenes, a rhetor (practitioner of rhetoric) and very literal demagogue (as in the original meaning of the word). The claim came from various misconceptions and biases that said a lot more about Athens than Macedon itself. For example, what was deemed "barbaric" by Athens and states akin to it was not the state of monarchy of Macedon, but the fact it was an absolute monarchy. Other Greek monarchies were heavily controlled by aristocrats and semi-elected bodies of rich, powerful men. Macedon was instead a heavily dynastic, absolutist monarchy that was similar to the style of monarchy Illyrians, Thracians, Persians etc (a.k.a. actual barbarians) had.
Also, you are making sweeping generalizations here. As I've said, this disdain and negative attitude came from Greeks that directly opposed Macedonian supremacy. There many Greek city-states that were keen to having Macedon lead them rather than Athens, Sparta or Thebes that had ruined the Greek peninsula with constant warring.
Not until he, and his MACEDONIAN, armies, conquered Persia, soon after that incredible accomplishment Greeks immediately embraced Alexander as one of them, saying: "of course he's a Greek!"
Alexander's army was heavily consisted of non-Macedonian Greeks. Why do you think Philip wanted to subdue the rest of Greece first? Greece's collective manpower and troops were crucial to the war effort. Also, who told you that there weren't people still rambling about Macedonians post-Alexander? Greek city-states were very fiercely independent and kept a disloyal attitude towards Macedon, rejecting any notion of panhellenism. In fact, Greek city-states supported Rome during their incursion in Macedon before Rome turned against them as well.
Macedonian armies were different from Greek ones, they didn't consist of hoplites, like the Greek ones, look at the differences in military approaches, the types of army units they used, compare and come to the right conclusions.
This is completely wrong. For starters, "hoplite" simply means "man-at-arms". Unless you are disputing Macedonian units weren't armoured, then they were hoplites. Secondly, if you mean the traditional Greek hoplite with heavy armour spear and shield, then Macedon had those too. Their fighting style was identical; fighting in solid phalanx formation forming a shield wall. The only difference was the length of their spears with the sarissa, but that was Philip's personal military innovation. Macedonians never used them before him, it's not a "traditional" diffference between Macedon and other Greek armies. Not only that, but the hypaspists were identical to other Greek hoplites due to the fact they had no sarissas, so Macedonian armies did in fact have those type of units too.
The primary difference in Macedonian armies was the tactics invented by Philip and the usage of cavalry as a shock unit (Greek cavalry were mostly for scouting/harassing enemies). If those differences make them an entirely new civ to you, then republican Roman armies are apparently not the same civilization as imperial Romans because their tactics and units changed.
Greekness was instilled in Alexander in his youth by Aristotle, brought over from Greece by Phillip to tutor his son.
Except that Aristotle was born in Chalkidike which was part of the kingdom of Macedon before and was reconquered by Philip.
Macedonians were a mixture of Greek, Illyrian and Thracian cultures (and a few other minor Balkan tribes), they borrowed from each culture, although the greek one was the most influential, so it dominated.
That's a bold claim, given how little we know about either Illyrian or Thracian cultures. Based on what historical evidence would you deduce a cultural link between Macedon and those 2?
The whole country was carved out of Illyrian and Thracian lands.
Illyria and Thrace as regions have very clear boundaries outside of Macedon. What makes you think their lands were "carved out" from Illyria and Thrace? Because they are adjacent? So is Thessaly.
True, Macedonians had a lot of Greek in them and for the most part identified themselves as part of Hellenistic world, however, Greeks didn't consider Macedonians Greek!
"Hellenistic world" is anachronistic here. "Hellenistic" defines the post-Alexander era and states that were either Greek or infused with Greek culture and administration. The Macedonians considered themselves part of the Greek/Hellenic world, not unlike Syracuse, Rhegium, Tarantas, Byzantium (the actual one) etc.
Those who deny the existence of Macedon as a separate entity, namely Greeks and ones like you, whomever you are, outnumber those who try and persuade others of the real facts about Macedon (we're not talking about the modern day country here) at least 10 to 1.
No one denies the existence of Macedon as a separate entity, I'm pretty sure everyone knows ancient Macedon was an independent kingdom. The supposed debate is around the identity of the ancient Macedonians which is a post-modern nationalist brouhaha infused by toxicity and political agendas. Modern discourse around Macedon has become so politically heated that all sorts of misnomers and false facts fly all over the place without sufficient scrutiny.
I also like how you conveniently ignore that one reason why this alleged 10 to 1 ratio exists is the historical and academic consensus on the matter. Reputable historians that have dedicated their careers to the ancient Greek world and Macedon have very clear evidence and subsequent conclusions about the latter. It really isn't that hard to verify either, you can choose any reputable book on the matter and have a go at it. One which I highly recommend is "A companion to Ancient Macedonia" by Joseph Roisman and Ian Worthington.
You are just another of the scores of Greeks and pro-Greeks, those who will deny the truth about Macedon because they demand and insist that the greatest General of all time was Greek, that's all.
"People disagree with me, therefore they are biased and pro-[insert relevant thing for bashing]".
This is a very unhelpful attitude and completely kills any chance at having rational, scientific discourse. I mean, I'm trying to give you some facts here, but what would be the point if you have a preconceived notion that anyone with a different opinion on the matter than you is biased? Your view on the matter relies on an a priori falseness on my part, regardless of what my arguments are.
Why make an exception for Aztec-Maya-Inca (or as I like to call them, Mayaincatec)? Because they are the "greatest" Civilizations of the Americas? 
