Debate challengers?

I'm enjoying debating lately and hoping to get some fun & competitive debates. No topic in mind, open to anything as long as it's somewhat fair.

Anyone interested?

You are very strong on legal debates so I'll prefer to vs you on something non-law, you pick the topic and side and we can discuss the particulars however I'd prefer it in June, not this month.

Okay, sure. 

Also, this debate is currently open for challengers: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3045-drunk-driving-should-be-legal

I was thinkin' on taking that debate, have any other topics you wanted to debate? I might be interested - I don't usually dabble in law, but it might be interesting. 

I don't have any specific topics in mind. Give me a couple you want to debate, and we can choose one.

Here are some topics I'd like to see you debate with people. 

1. When liberty and public health are in conflict, governments should always prioritize liberty.  (Where you're PRO).

The above is the less-biased approach, but the below is probably the clearer,  less abstract and more direct way of phrasing the topic.  I prefer the former, but I think the below wording might be easier for people to understand.

Alternatively: "Governmental intrusions on individual liberty can never be justified based on public health concerns." (Where you're PRO). 

2. The United States should re-enter the JCPOA, without preconditions imposed on Iran.  (Don't care which side you take).

3. Spanking/paddling should replace detentions and suspensions in American public schools.  (Where you're PRO).

4. Proof of COVID vaccination should never be required for any purpose by either the government or any private entity.  (Where you're PRO).

5. The United States should waive patent protection for COVID vaccines.  (I suspect you're PRO on this, though I don't care which side you take).

Happy to offer them up.  

I'm sure there are people on the site that would take those challenges, if you offered them.  May take a few times before you catch someone who will see their way through to finishing the debate, but I'd suggest just posting as open challenges. 

I also, from a judging perspective, prefer three rounds of 8k characters or less.  

I think I won't do more than that again, from a debating perspective, either.  It's just not needed.  Less is more, in these cases.  

I left it 10k characters because I respect the right of debaters to weaken their arguments with unnecessary wordiness.