DNA Should Be Collected From All Newborn Babies And Stored Indefinitely

*My contender claimed that my argument is "nothing but conjecture; unfounded and unsourced." Also, he claimed that this debate was aimed towards Western countries. I would like to address his first claim by saying that his arguments are also conjecture; unfounded and unsourced. We are talking theoretically here because the world has not adopted his policy, therefore we don't know for sure what would happen if his policy were to be adopted. Because of this, there obviously would be no sources for either of us and we would have to form conjectures. Also, he did not specify that he was aiming towards only Western countries. Therefore I was under the impression that his suggested resolution entailed the entire world._______________________________________________________________________________ Rebuttal:"Nothing currently stops criminals from placing somebody else's hair at the scene of their crime."-And enforcing a DNA database would not stop it either."The only thing that would change is that the police would be able to identify whose hair it was."-Pro has conceded that enforcing a DNA database would not bring a ver significant benefit to crime investigation."CSI teams know not to convict someone solely on their DNA being present at a scene if they have no other motive or reason to be there."-Exactly! That is how they currently work! And I am arguing that if there is a national DNA database, crime investigators won't be as cautious."Police quality will not drop; just because there would be a complete DNA database does not mean the police will get lazy; they will check the database to build up suspects, and then take enquiries further."-If they check the database, they will be comparing DNA with millions of people, whereas the current system, which uses Gel Electrophoresis compares it with only the suspects, making it more precise. Because the database contains would contain the entire population and Gel Electrophoresis only compares it with about 20 people, it is logical to conclude that crime investigators would be lazy because they would rather not look through millions of people. "Elizabeth Smart, 14-years-old, was taken from her home and was missing for 9 months; she had many opportunities to escape and even denied that she was kidnapped when police found her."-If this is the case, Elizabeth Smart would likely not choose to get a DNA test. "Any kidnapped individual who took a DNA test would be immediately identified as a missing person and thus be saved."-Yes, because the first and easiest thing a kidnapped victim would do is to go to a public place and get a DNA test. That was sarcasm. I agree with your claims on the conditions on kidnapped victims, but they likely not take a DNA test very soon after they are kidnapped. "There are many scenarios where a DNA test would be a lot quicker in finding lost relatives. This debate was not intended to implicate a global database"-If the debate was not intened to implicate a global database, then your point is fundamentally flawed, because people cannot any foreign family members. Say the father of the child produced from the one night stand was from Europe and the DNA database only covers the United States. The child would not have much luck finding him."Hacking government databases is extremely rare"-While it might be rare and unlikely, if it were to happen, the consequences would be tremendous."I would much rather somebody have access to my DNA profile than my name, address"-If somebody has access to your DNA in your theoretical database, they would certainly also have your name and address. If not, then people wouldn't be able to find long lost relatives through this DNA database. In fact, if somebody has access to your DNA profile, then this person would also know all your relatives and their names and addresses."It is true that cancer patients have small changes in their DNA, but the keyword here is small"-Yes, I concede, cancer patients don't have to worry about this because their mutation is small. But there are people who have HUGE mutations, either since birth or during their lives. This is not cancer though, simply a genetic disorder. People with genetic mutations this huge would certainly affect the outcomes in the DNA database. Addendum:-Pro's policy suggests that everyone is to be forced to do this, because if not everyone contributes their DNA, the system would ultimately be flawed. However, there would certainly be people who refuse to participate in this system. By enforcing this upon them you are viloating their Freedom of Choice.Conclusion:-I have shown how the benefits that come from Pro's resolution does not bring significant enough benefits for it to be deserved to be enforced. In some cases, it even violates peoples' freedom._______________________________________________________________Note to viewers:I would prefer if this debate did not recieve any votes, mainly because I was too occupied to submit my argument in the second round and feel that since Pro has also forfeited and that his account is no longer active, voting for either Pro or Con (me) wouldn't be fair. Also, this debate was incredibly hypothetical.