Human suffering is bad

My opponent's argument can ultimately be reduced to this: Badness is what people consider to be bad. People consider human suffering to be bad. Therefore, human suffering is bad. Now, I have raised many concerns about this, and I will go over them soon. For now though, I will simplify the biggest problems with such an argument. 1. Badness should be used here as I defined it. The rules state as much. 2. Many people (including myself) do not consider human suffering to be bad. By extension, we can see that human suffering does not even fit Pro's description of a bad thing. 3. Pro has not successfully proved badness to be a coherent concept. Besides this flawed and basic argument he makes several points that I think do not support his case, and in one instance actually brings question to it. 1. My opponent needs to remember that he agreed to my definitions. Human suffering is the state of being in pain, for the purposes of this debate. The a priori conclusion is that all endurance of pain is human suffering. All pain is pain. If there is pain, there is human suffering. Whether or not an instance of pain results in more or less pain, is completely irrelevant. Pain is also empirically existent. Since it is a physical thing, using deductive reasoning to prove it's existence or non-existence simply ends up being an irrelevant epistemological process. Pain is an uncomfortable feeling that warns us of various types of dangers [1]. If my opponent is not satisfied that pain is real, then he has not fulfilled his BOP, which is that he must prove that human pain is bad. The universe exists, objectively. The concept, that arose from human beings, is one that describes reality. The description of reality applies, even when humans are not around. There would not be a description, but the description of the place without humans is coherent. For example, let's suppose there is an alternate universe, without people. Would my opponent suggest that none of our descriptions could possibly apply to such a universe? Even if otherwise, it perfectly resembled our own? What I meant by mathematics and languages existing, is that the social constructs exist. No more than that. Whether or not numbers themselves exist is for a separate debate. I did not confuse "coherent" with "objective". I would suggest that my opponent respond to my arguments, and not some strange perversion of it. An integral part of this debate has been whether or not badness is a coherent concept. I am using the word to represent the word and concept itself. We can debate square circles, but that does not make square circles a coherent concept. Things also always need to exist objectively in order to exist at all. We can have different interpretations of objective things, but those interpretations exist objectively as well. Pain can be proven to exist objectively, empirical evidence has shown that much. My opponent talks about various scales, and the existence of things on them. Things that exist on one scale exist on another. On a cosmic scale, subatomic particles exist. Coherency is coherency no matter from what perspective it is viewed from. On a cosmic scale, alol bachelors are unmarried. On a cosmic scale, the Earth's sky is blue in some areas. The stars do not know anything. They are stars, and they do not have the cognitive ability to understand. Badness has not been proven coherent by my opponent. My apology was regarding Pro's suggestion that human action is proof that human affairs matter. No, planets are not like humans in every regard. Pro is correct about that. We obviously are affected greatly by suffering. A planet is likewise greatly affected by rotation. Neither suffering, nor the spinning of planets, has been proven to have any effect on the suppoverly coherent concept of "badness". Human pain does exist objectively. From an objective perspective, humans have been in pain. In conclusion, my opponent has done nothing to prove that human suffering is bad. Pro's best argument is that the resolution is intuitively true, but not only is that not true, it is not enough to fulfill his BOP. Pro has not even successfully proved that anything is bad, and he has brought into question whether or not pain is coherent. In order to win, he would have had to prove that things were bad, and that human pain was one of them. I urge the floor to acknowledge that his attempts to prove the resolution were unsuccessful. [1]http://www.ninds.nih.gov...