Human suffering is bad

My response will continue to consist of responses to my opponent's attempt at fulfilling their BOP, rather than original arguments. The word "universe" does not exist outside the context of human language. The concept is similarly nonexistant without human beings. Almost every concept exists as nothing more than a function of consciousness. The implication of this is not that every concept is meaningless from an objective perspective. You can't justly declare that stars are an incoherent idea on an objective scale. You can't even justly say that mathematics or language don't exist objectively, as they all have objective qualities and effects. If humans think that they are underneath the stars, there is still the objective fact that they are not. I don't have to prove that bad is a coherent concept from an objective perspective, Pro does. I do not need to prove that the resolution is false, given that the concept of bad could be incoherent, and therefore not falsifiable. In order to prove the resolution true, however, the concept would have to be coherent. Perceiving something as bad does not make it so. Human suffering is a clear and objective concept. It is the state of pain one feels. Pain has defining qualities that make it pain. An objective view of the universe would reveal there to be physical attributes that constitute that which pain is. There is no objective word for pain, but the word "pain" is one that we use for these attributes. This debate is clearly from an objective perspective. If this debate was about whether or not I had blonde hair, it'd be ridiculous to say that we couldn't objectively talk about that. Especially on the basis of how the word "blonde" is incoherent from an inhuman perspective. "Pain is not human suffering to someone who cannot feel pain" that's like saying that blonde hair is not blonde to someone who has brown hair. Human pain is human suffering. Human suffering is always pain. Pain is a real thing, in the same way blonde hair is. Objectively, there is blonde hair. Objectively, there is pain. It is your BOP to prove that human suffering is bad. By extension, if you cannot prove that badness is a coherent concept, you have not fulfilled your BOP. I am merely questioning your basis for thinking that badness is a coherent concept, because I simply cannot prove otherwise. I also cannot prove that "dinklops" is an incoherent process, precisely because it is incoherent. What do you mean by badness? Also, I was not negating the claim that badness was a coherent concept, I was proving that not everybody knows what badness is. I am actually of the base assumption that nobody knows what badness means, because there is no reason to suggest it means anything at all. I did not say that something doesn't matter because there is a biological basis for it. I said that there is no reason to assume that everything that has a biological basis to occur matters. They are definitely not mutually exclusive terms. They are also not equivalent. My analogy was well done. You suggested that we would not do what we do if it did not matter. I showed that doing things is not evidence of mastering. I have said enough to prove that. Human suffering is an actual concept about actual physical attributes. Badness, on the other hand, has not been proved by you to be the same in this regard. One cannot be at the center of the universe. "The center of the universe" is not a thing. We could not take the concept of bananas (which is our concept) and say that we are them. Ideas do not work like that. If they did, then I could say that I'm right because I have the concept of rightness and me, and I could therefore equate them.