What would be the harm?

[Angrboda]

Not my responsibility. Look, we could resolve this simply. Present your argument as to harm being mind independent again so that you can demonstrate your point. The problem there is that I will simply again point out the errors you made the first time you made the argument. That won't advance the ball. I'm perfectly happy if you choose not to advance the ball this way, because then I win. Anything other than you putting forward a valid, assertive defense and you lose. But knowing you, I rather suspect that you won't do this. So I win by default.

(I will also point out that my inability to read your mind and demonstrate what you think moral theorists are talking about is irrelevant. I don't need to know what they are talking about or what they have said, as I know what you have talked about and what you have asserted, and harm isn't mind independent based on what you've asserted. So my not being able to intuit what you think moral theorists are talking about is nothing more than a red herring. And now you're reduced to making elementary logical errors instead of defending the things you've claimed.)