trayvon martin over george zimmerman, was more a cause of racism

"yes a juror attributed it to a culture thing, but it was not the cracka reference to olden days like con argues" This isn't, in fact, what I have argued. These are two separate points. A- The use of the word "cracka" is a cultural term taught to Florida youth by members outside their race. And B- The word "cracka" in the state of Florida is viewed as a source of cultural pride for many whites. To contrast my opponent's argument about the word "nigga," those who use that word in a derogatory manner taught the word to all others. The word is not a source of cultural pride, nor are it's origins benevolent in nature. It is both repulsive, and irrational to make a direct comparison between the two terms. "even if this is the case, it doesn't mean it wasn't racist, and it is more racist than anything zimmerman said. " My opponent ignores that "saying" racist things does not necessarily contribute to a situation involving race. Martin's comments had no effect on Zimmerman, or the situation. It was Zimmerman's actions- his profiling of Trayvon Martin as a young black male who fit the description of those responsible for 8 burglaries prior to the incident; his claim that Martin was on drugs; his claim that Martin was acting suspicious; his claim that Martin was one of these little "a$$ holes" who always get away; his unjustified pursuit of Trayvon Martin, and eventual confrontation- all of these things are what precipitated the situation, not Martin's words or actions. Trayvon Martin was completely innocent, though my opponent would have you believe otherwise. "martin was angry, angry zimmerman was following him" There is absolutely no evidence being offered by my opponent to suggest Martin was angry. He was not angry- he was scared. He ran. He didn't describe his pursuer as someone he would want to confront and fight- he identified him as creepy, and ran. My opponent's claim is pure contrivance. "i'm not trying to make it out to be that it was martin who was hot headed instigator" My opponent fails to realize he has just contradicted his entire position. The title of the debate reads "Trayvon Martin, over George Zimmerman, was more a cause of racism. " He goes on to say in his first argument that Martin was "more guilty" of racism than Zimmerman was. So at one point in this debate, my opponent has acknowledged Zimmerman's racism. With this statement here, he admits Martin was not the instigator. These two facts completely contradict Pro. Zimmerman was the racist instigator of the incident resulting in Trayvon Martin's death, by my opponent's own arguments. "martin was 'upset' which was my only point to begin with" My opponent has offered no evidence showing Martin was upset, nor that his being so would have contributed to the incident. He was watched by an armed adult, pursued, and killed. If he was suspicious of being watched by a man he deemed creepy, ran, and got into an altercation with him- none of his actions exhibit racism, and much less "more" racism than Zimmerman's profiling, pursuit, and murder. "cracka was mroe negative than con insists. " The amount of negativity perceived by the jury in the use of the word "cracka," and the way the person who heard it is what matters most. Martin's use of the term did not affect Zimmerman, nor did it precipitate the incident by my opponent's own admission. My opponent's argument is, essentially, that what Martin was thinking in his head while being watched is somehow more racist than the actions Zimmerman took which resulted in Martin's death. He has not proven this at all, and, in fact, has repeatedly supported aspects of my argument while contradicting aspects of his own. "i tend to trust that zimemrman thought it was erratic behavior" The facts are Trayvon Martin's behavior was not erratic, and much more- not criminal. What Zimmerman thought is only relevant in so far as one may try to determine his own state of mind. What Zimmerman thought about Martin, in the end, had nothing to do with Trayvon Martin at all. I have already proven this- there is nothing erratic, or suspicious about a 17 year old boy walking home from 7/11 in the rain while talking on the phone to a girl. We know for a fact this is all Martin was doing. "i just showed that thinking that doesn't ahve to do with race" My opponent makes claims of evidence that he has not shown. He did nothing at all to show that Zimmerman's assumption had nothing to do with race. Zimmerman's own words confirm it had everything to do with race. The phone call to the police started with "We've had a few break ins in the area. " This was in reference to the 8 burglaries that had been perpetrated by young black males. .. at least allegedly. This is further confirmed by the later statement, "These a$$ holes always get away" in reference to a previous call he made where he watched a young black male stake out a house that was later robbed, but no one was caught. Frank Taaffe, Robert Zimmerman, Jr. , and Robert Zimmerman, Sr. have all confirmed through various statements that Trayvon Martin was profiled because he was a young black male. "con just assumes zimmerman was out looking for black men" I have made no assumptions. I've pointed to evidence. Here is some evidence: - George Zimmerman called the Sanford PD in late 2011 to request a Neigborhood Watch program be set up in his community in response to a string of burglaries. - According to Wendy Dorival, the Neighborhood Watch Coordinator for the Sanford PD, NW members are encouraged to not confront suspicious persons, and carrying a gun is out of the question. - On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman called police to report a young black man looking into a home in his community. By the time police arrived, the suspect had fled. - A young man was arrested on February 6, 2012 with a laptop that had been stolen from a home. Zimmerman identified this young man as the same one he watched on February 2. - There were 8 burglaries in the neighborhood prior to the shooting. - Trayvon Martin was not acting suspcious. He was walking home from the store. - Trayvon Martin was not under the influence. - Trayvon Martin was not "up to no good," as Zimmerman suggests in his call to Sanford PD. Given all these facts it becomes evident that Zimmerman pursued Martin because he was a young black male, as there is no other rational justification for his pursuit other than he fit the profile of suspects in previous crimes. This point has already been conceded by my opponent. In his Round 1 argument he states: "referred to martin and all the criminals in the area recently as "they". many think this means 'black'" My opponent does not clarify how Martin is like the suspects in the previous crimes. He denies the link has to do with race, but provides no other reason to lump Trayvon Martin with "they," which he refers to as "Martin and all the criminals in the area recently. " How was Martin like the criminals if he was not a criminal? My opponent has completely failed to make his point. The burden of proof was on my opponent to show that Martin's words and/or actions were both racist, AND somehow contributed to the incident. My opponent claims Martin's words were racist, but he does not show how Martin's words or actions led to his pursuit and murder. My opponent admits Zimmerman exhibited some degree of racism. He admits Zimmerman was the instigator, and he admits Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.