The pleasure I get from reading a book isn't quantifiable. Does that mean I don't get pleasure from reading books?

It means that we can't objectively prove that you get pleasure from reading books.

If testimony wasn't evidence, why is testimony admitted as evidence in a courtroom?

Testimony is used to supplement physical evidence. Cases where eyewitness testimony is the only evidence available are regarded as weak cases for a reason. Of course, this hasn't kept unethical prosecutors from exploiting the ignorance and racism of juries on the matter. As the Innocence Project has shown, many of innocent people, especially black men, have been executed or imprisoned for decades on such "evidence". If "evidence" with such poor track record is your standard, then I'll leave you to it.

The ignorance is breathtaking.

Indeed. If you think testimony itself is enough to prove anything, you can look forward to a bright future as a juror.

It's pretty well known that if you call a black person a nigger, or a gay person a faggot, it's very likely to make them upset.

I've known plenty of black people and gays that just shrugged such insults off as the whining of intolerant bigots not worth their time. That said, "being upset" doesn't constitute harm. If it did, Seahawks fans were "harmed" that their team lost the last SuperBowl. Of course, by your logic, they have suffered crippling and life altering "emotional harm" on par with being robbed at gun-point and should probably sue.

Would you like me to demonstrate the sky is blue while I'm at it?

Your bluster and ad hominem attacks betray your inability to think about this subject rationally.