Compulsory Inclusion of Non-Felons' DNA by any Government Database is Just

Thank you ThinkBig! I will begin with my rebuttals first and then a summary of my main points. Rebuttals 1. Crime "A bigger DNA database would mean larger backlogs."Here, I am going to state my full model for this debate:A DNA database which includes non-felons should be implemented as soon as possible for all new-born babies in order to ensure that it can be slowly built up rather than an entire country's population at once. Slow build-up will also ensure that laboratories can be planned and built efficiently to suit future needs. Organisations such as the UN should then fund extensively into such databases and labs. The reason why backlogs have been occurring and are in fact occurring right now is due to lack of investment into research and technology [1]. Backlogs are indeed terrible but all it implies is that governments should start to focus even more on improving and expanding their DNA databases in order to aid in crime solving. "The cons far outweigh the pros."Actually, my opponent is wrong here. As his own own source in Round 2 clearly states, "DNA databases (...) will be used ever more in the future..". If DNA databases are being invested on and used more everyday by many different countries, then it can only mean that the pros indeed far outweigh the cons and not the other way around. Even though it will definitely take a significant amount of money in capital to invest on a national DNA database, the profit obtained from such a project and investment will be huge in the long-term. Ray Wickenheiser, the NYSP Laboratory Director and the former director of the Montgomery County Police Department's Forensic Services Section says: "Use of forensic DNA technology to associate individuals with crimes has produced a revolution in the way crimes are solved (...) The estimated cost to analyze all of the 366,460 reported sexual assault occurring in the U.S. per year is $366 Million (...) The estimated savings resulting from apprehending serial offenders early in their careers and thereby preventing future crimes is $12.9 Billion(...) The savings is 35.2 times the investment..."[2]Therefore, a DNA database will not only help the police force in crime, but also improve the entire country as more money is being saved to invest on other important issues such as education and health. ___2. Human Rights "There is a fundamental difference between a DNA test on infants for diseases and genetic disords versus taking DNA and storing it in a database for future crimes."Actually, the difference between a screening on a new-born baby and a DNA database is very little. Babies go through a DNA screening to (as you said) test for diseases and genetic disorders. The principal purpose of this is to ensure that they are safe and healthy. As with a DNA database, I have already proven and my opponent himself has even admitted that it is extremely useful in aiding crime investigations- "it is true that DNA is extremely valuable in solving crime". The principal purpose of a DNA database is to obviously, prevent crime and aid the police force in solving crime. All this is for the safety and sake of our society. Isn't that basically the same intention as the screening test? Therefore, there is not a fundamental difference between the two. "DNA samples can provide insights into personal family relationships, disease predisposition, physical attributes, and ancestry."While that is true, the private matters of an individual even today is not only known to themselves. For example, a doctor will know your disease predispositions and health, an accountant will know your financial situation etc. Both of my examples have to swear confidentiality. Failure to do so will result in extreme consequences, which we all know. Therefore, the same rules apply to a national DNA database. "Civil Libertarians have thus characterized the creation of DNA databases as the computerized equivalent of an Orwellian Big Brother."What an exaggeration! Orwell's Big Brother is basically a fearsome dictator who controls everything people do without letting them have a say in anything. DNA databases are kept in order to help the entire population and furthermore, everything will be completely confidential like the examples I mentioned above. Anyone who has read 1984 would find that statement vehemently amplified and untrue. A DNA database should certainly not be considered as an "invasion of privacy" because all it is is a record of all citizens in order to help us. The fundamental purpose of it is not to investigate people's private information. ___3. Discrimination "As noted in the previous round, DNA is not always effective as not all crime scenes leave DNA evidence."Yes, I agree that DNA is not always available in all crime scenes but it is indeed present in many:"As of May 2016, CODIS has produced over 332,348 hits assisting in more than 318,824 investigations." [3]"looking for a DNA match among a known group of suspects for a specific crime does not require a database"Just to reiterate, without a DNA database, we are forced to use discriminatory dragnets which, because of bias (as explained in Round 2), can be inaccurate. Therefore, testing people's DNA if they are suspected of a crime is a slower process and can also annoy people if they are simply 'suspected' because of random reasons rather than the fact that their DNA was oddly found at a crime scene."It is unlikely that it will be possible to obtain DNA profiles from more than 1% of crime scenes for several reasons."I am unable to view your source that is suppose to support that statement. However, I know this is the third time I'll have said it but I'll say it again: the National DNA Database in the UK helps to identify a suspect in 60% of criminal cases (source link in previous rounds). "there is always the risk of false positives."Yes, there will always be a risk. Nothing is perfect and this will always be considered. But a DNA database is no doubt an improvement as I have explained several times already. Therefore, do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. We cannot deny the fact that even without DNA proof, innocent people are still being convicted accidentally. In the US, 4% of defendants sentenced to die are innocent [4].___Before I move on to my list of main points, I would like to say that my opponent has not yet explained what he meant by:"DNA databases (...) will be used ever more in the future. As a result, Black and Latino teenagers (...) are also disproportionally at higher risk of being falsely suspected, accused and even convicted of more serious crimes."This was likely a simple mistake that he either forgot or simply did not see it. ___Main Points1. DNA databases have proven to greatly help with crime2. It is more effective than any alternative plan that we have3. Without DNA databases, we only have discriminatory dragnets4. DNA databases could eliminate discrimination in general5. DNA databases will benefit the entire population despite 'harming' certain individuals6. DNA databases are a good investment and will help a country in the long run7. The police force needs to start using more sophisticated resources8. There will be no 'invasion of privacy' as everything will be confidentialConclusionThe compulsory inclusion of non-felon's DNA by any government database is certainly and without a doubt, just because of all of the reasons mentioned above. This is my last argument in this debate and due to character limits, I'm going to have to end it here. Thank you for reading. Vote Pro!I'd also like to thank my esteemed opponent for such a wonderful debate which I thoroughly enjoyed.Citations: [1] http://www.dnaforensics.com...[2] http://victimsofcrime.org...[3] https://www.fbi.gov...[4] https://www.theguardian.com...