a good point but the idea of having constraints on liberty arises from the idea of negative liberty.
negative liberty - when we take liberty in the sense of "freedom from something". this type of liberty is harmful and needs constraints. Still, when we put the idea of positive liberty which means having the freedom to do something, the idea of putting a constraint is immediately nullified as this liberty manages to be self-sufficient and does not draw itself into the harm principle.
harm principle is an idea that says that if a person practices his liberty in a way that only affects him, it should not be stopped. but if we practice our liberty in a way that affects other people then such liberty is harmful. the point you gave is a derivation of the harm principle. harm principle does not come into practice when the idea of positive liberty is followed. When we understand that we have the freedom to do something we value it morally, when we assume that we have the freedom from something our subconscious mind does not value such freedom and allegedly causes harm to others in following his liberty.
another fascinating criticism of constraints on rights and liberty comes from an Indian statesman, a writer named Somnath Lahiri he says quote, "I feel that many of these fundamental rights are framed from the point of view of a police constable...…you will find that many minimum rights have been conceded and are without any proviso. almost every article is followed by a proviso that takes away the right completely... what should be our conception of rights?... we want to incorporate every one of those rights which our people want to get"
this is a fascinating idea as it criticizes the constraints of rights. the concepts of rights and liberty are very interrelated to each other and after all the right to life and liberty is considered the most important rights in many nations. putting constraints on liberty to do something takes away its power and importance almost immediately, and so henceforth it can be said that if all follow the idea of positive liberty can work without constraints, and in that case, the entire framework of constraints on liberty falls apart and this seems to be unnecessary.
here is an example, if a person is given liberty with the negative concept in the sense that he has freedom from government, then this will allegedly lead to chaos, when one is given the idea of positive liberty say, freedom to drink coffee, freedom to do homework, etc. then the idea of constraints is nonexistent as this liberty is so self clarified that it doesn't need constraints.
(this was my first debate hope you appreciate it, lad)
If the topic gets too awkward, I can always forfeit.
It's best to not do debates like this.
I can make the topic, "Raping adult women should be legal" and you would have the pro position, which I would assume you would not want to defend as if it's a 50/50 position.
You and the debator should agree on a common topic before you debate. I don't think you would want to defend legalizing rape, murder, or cannibalism (unless you want a really hard Devils Advocate challange).