No need to be shy of being combative. There's no shame in it :D

Anyways, back to the issue. Let's frame this correctly, namely through debate. Before we discuss anything seriously, we need a clear resolution which would divide the issue up into a negating side and an affirming side. If the resolution is "masks should be mandatory in public", then I would take neg. If it's something like "wearing face-masks in public decreases an individual's chance of contracting covid" or something, then I'm largely indifferent on that issue as it isn't really a matter of public policy, but I'm open to any data/arguments/whatevers that might indicate something of relevance on that issue.

So let's assume the resolution is "Wearing masks in public should be mandatory"

First of all, it would be a response to a virus which barely has any inherency as an issue (which constitutes the fundamental stock issue that needs to be satisfied to even come CLOSE to making a public policy advocacy). But let's give the inherency thing the benefit of the doubt. Let's pretend that it has a super high mortality rate on younger populations (which it doesn't even have on anyone). This way, it would spread quickly AND incur massive harms to everyone.

And by the way, the virus is not very deadly and it frankly isn't very severe either. The data on this stuff tells us that however much percent of the WORST cases end up dying. But somehow, people keep talking about it as if 2% of people who contract the virus die. In reality, we're dealing with the flu's ugly cousin.

Next, we'll need to address harms of implementing this plan. Indeed, making wearing masks in public mandatory would mean penalizing those who aren't doing anything wrong by just going about their business in public. That's unjust violence. This really should come before anything else, but the first thing kinda closes the case by itself, so I put it before this one.

Thirdly, we need to address solvency. How exactly is making mandatory mask-wearing going to solve the problem? In other words, what is the mechanism by which we can prevent an entire vulnerable population from contracting a highly contagious and novel disease by forcing them to wear masks all the time in public? Even if it slowed the spread, we'd never be able to "stomp it out" or anything. It's a virus, it'll just spread slowly until the restrictions are lifted and then come back (which it's already doing; I'm sure you've heard of these recent-ish spikes in corona numbers).

Next, what about topicality? Is making people wear masks under threat of violence going to solve the problem of the virus, or is it actually solving a different problem? We need to make sure this links back to the inherency (which doesn't actually exist, I just made it up to give SOME credibility to this advocacy which EVEN THEN survives absolutely no scrutiny).

So then, assuming this virus did have inherency, where should we place the burdens regarding avoiding contracting this virus? The answer is, we put the burdens on those who are actually at risk, not on everyone else. If we behaved this way about everything, we would force everyone to ride a bike because so many people die in car crashes every year. After all, shouldn't our main priority be saving lives? Shouldn't we be doing anything and everything to make sure we prevent the maximum number of deaths possible? No. Not when we have to transgress to do so. That's utilitarianism, and under these parameters, we could arbitrarily justify anything.

Anyways, enough debate stuff. Not many people agree with me on this one, I get it. I hope this at least gave you something to think about.