The Instigator
supercee
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Korezaan
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

The topic is should every member be mandated to provide samples for DNA testing?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 992 times Debate No: 3733
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (7)

 

supercee

Pro

Flaws in the criminal justice system have led to numerous wrongful convictions, many of which have been sentenced to death. However, if everyone in the society is required to provide samples for DNA testing, it would become a great help in proving someone guilty or innocent of having committed a crime. This is, of course, a wonderful thing. All that DNA could reveal about you is the genetic information of your cell. It wouldn't hurt you and it wouldn't possibly reveal any juicy secrets you've been trying to seclude all along. If you lost a loved one, wouldn't it be nice to capture the criminal as soon as possible. We have the technology. Why not use it!
Korezaan

Con

I negate, that every member should be mandated to provide samples for DNA testing.

DEFINITIONS
member - of society (inferred from PRO R1)
mandate - required, by law (dictionary.com definition 2)

CASE/LINE-BY-LINE

1) DNA does not track down more criminals.
---Too often is DNA cited as "the truth". The truth could be nothing further away from the position of the PRO: If we implement a system where we use DNA to track down criminals, then it would result in even more innocent people being convicted in court. Let me explain what I mean. As i said earlier, DNA is often cited as the truth: A hair has your DNA, (if you're a man) your sperm has DNA, pretty much anything you leave behind outside of footprints and fingerprints has your DNA on it. But the moment where we start implementing a whole system of security based off of DNA, we're just going to have a lot more people catching onto the fact that there IS DNA technology. There are still criminals out there that have no idea what DNA is and if we keep them in the dark about it, then we can still use DNA to nab them. However if we put everyone in the light, then more criminals would just collect stray fallen hairs off of other people and lay them at the crime scene - voila! the police just caught the wrong person.

2) "It wouldn't hurt you and it wouldn't possibly reveal any juicy secrets you've been trying to seclude all along."
--It would hurt you as much as having a file of yours in the CIA database. I don't know about you, but i don't like having people watch me unless they have, say, A WARRANT. Sure it doesn't reveal that i go to porn sites or play WoW 24/7, nothing like that, sure, but what it does give out is a link to everything about you: social security number, DOB, etc etc etc. Doesn't hurt you? It doesn't hurt you in the sense that "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear", but I don't think that we ought to go to being a police state unless there's some justification for it. If there is, I'd like to hear it in the PRO's R2.

3) "If you lost a loved one, wouldn't it be nice to capture the criminal as soon as possible."
---If I lost a loved one, it would be nice for me to be able to blow the brains out of the criminal with a Pancor Jackhammer. But that's not about to happen, and I'm not about to do that, and just because something seems nice does not suddenly make it justified.

4) "We have the technology. Why not use it!"
---Honestly, this sounds like...
-'We have the technology and space to remake the Holocaust. Why not use it!'
-'We have the technology to send the world into nuclear winter. Why not use it!'
---I don't think that ability needs to be followed by usage. I have the ability to hack this school computer I'm on right now, why don't I use it? It's because I'm not a moron, I don't want to be expelled/suspended/etcetcetc, I don't have a reason to, and I don't have the obligation to.

PRO has no good impacts.
Therefore, default CON.
Debate Round No. 1
supercee

Pro

If we do have a DNA database, it doesn't have to reveal your health card number, SIN.. it could simply reveal your address, name and birthday. That information is already held in the government system anyways. The government has MORE than just your address, name, SIN, health card number.. they have records of EVERYTHING. So techinally, you're already being "watched". However, you're NOT being watched... no body is peeking behind you in a corner and watching your every move. You shouldn't have to worry about that if you haven't done anything wrong--- or unless you plan on committing some kind of crime.

The rates of returning criminals is very high, and with a DNA database, you can easily recapture those people.

And when you say not everyone knows about DNA, well actually, they do. By putting it out in the open, it may actually help reduce crime rates because people KNOW we can catch them easily. And when they know they'll be caught, they wouldn't do it to begin with. Even if they do know about the DNA system, some may not know how to get rid of all that information. It's not just your hair, sperm or skin that leaves your DNA. There's so much more to that.

When I see why not use it, I don't mean using everything we have-- even if it's to do bad things. Why not use this useful system if we have the ability to esp. since it helps our communities.

You say that something nice may not be justified. So what is it that you want? If there's a way of finding a murderer of someone-- even if its not your family member or friend that were killed, why shouldn't we be using it? As soon as you find the guy, not only do you benefit, but so does everyone around you. In the time that the police doesn't catch the suspect, is the time that they can strike again, with whatever it is they do.
Korezaan

Con

Note: My arguments from R1 (1,2,3,4) will now be called C1,C2,C3,C4.

- PRO in her R2 concedes to the notion that being watched is a bad thing. Her saying "So techinally, you're already being "watched"" only goes to prove that having this mandatory DNA stuff will watch over us even more, which is not good.

- "no body is peeking behind you in a corner and watching your every move." - Cross-apply C2.

- "You shouldn't have to worry about that if you haven't done anything wrong--- or unless you plan on committing some kind of crime." - Cross-apply C2.

- "The rates of returning criminals is very high, and with a DNA database, you can easily recapture those people." - Prove it.

- "And when you say not everyone knows about DNA, well actually, they do." - What may seem like common sense to people like you and me is not common sense for many other people. For example: http://youtube.com..., and http://youtube.com...

- "By putting it out in the open, it may actually help reduce crime rates because people KNOW we can catch them easily." - Extend my C1.

- "It's not just your hair, sperm or skin that leaves your DNA. There's so much more to that." - Thanks for helping my side. Please turn this and add to my C1.

- "Why not use this useful system if we have the ability to esp. since it helps our communities." - First of all she hasn't proven how it helps our communities, she just says that having a DNA system will track people better. She has never proven how that works, and even if I give her that argument, she just added more things to show how my first argument - about reliance on this DNA system - is a strong reason to go CON. But anyways. Onto what she said for this specifically >>>>>> She said that "we have the ability to esp. since it helps our communities." Since when did "it's beneficial" necessarily mean "it's mandatory"? And then there's the problem of what light we're looking at something in. Let's take cars. Getting rid of cars is beneficial because it clears up emissions in the area. But then if we get rid of cars business will fall as people would take much longer to commute to work. Her "beneficial"ness of the DNA system has 1) not been proven to work and 2) has already been outweighed by my C1. At this point you can already vote CON. Oh yes, cross-apply C4 here.

- "So what is it that you want?" - Obviously I don't want a DNA system implemented.

- "If there's a way of finding a murderer of someone-- even if its not your family member or friend that were killed, why shouldn't we be using it?" - Two parts. One, should does not mean legal mandate. Two, the ways in which we determine what methods we use to reach result X is looked upon based on its good and bad aspects. DNA simply has too many bad aspects. Let's take a look at an example. Let's say there's a missile from a nameless country aimed at another aimless country, and it has been fired and is currently travelling in subspace. The 'victim' country has anything it could ever want to take down the missile; from Mateba Autorevolvers to Pancor Jackhammers, from ABLs to nukes. Sure, they're in danger. They want to get rid of it. But that doesn't suddenly mean they should act like idiots and fire their pistols at a missile, or use a nuke to spread radiation around the globe. It's exactly the same thing with the DNA system: there are better ways of approaching the problem.

- "As soon as you find the guy, not only do you benefit, but so does everyone around you. In the time that the police doesn't catch the suspect, is the time that they can strike again, with whatever it is they do." - Cross apply C1.
Debate Round No. 2
supercee

Pro

supercee forfeited this round.
Korezaan

Con

Korezaan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
superceeKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
superceeKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by maxh 9 years ago
maxh
superceeKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by WeaponE 9 years ago
WeaponE
superceeKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by sleepiB 9 years ago
sleepiB
superceeKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
superceeKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
superceeKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03