Instigator

Is water wet?

Debating

Waiting for instigator's argument

The round will be automatically forfeited in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Description
Water is wet.
No forfeiting
No trolling
And no excessive cursing.
Round 1
Published:
Thanks, PressF4Respect for Accepting this Debate.
================================================================================
PRELUDE

0.1  Definitions
Wet- “covered or saturated with water or another liquid.”
Water- A molecule made up of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom

0.2  Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is on PRO (me) for instigating this debate.

0.3  Structure
R1-Opening Statements
R2- Counters, Rebuttals, Adding Opening Statements.
R3- Rebuttals
R4- Rebuttals
R5- Sans Rebuttals and Closing.
========================================================================
ARGUMENTS
I. Our Oceans
             a.The most obvious example of water on earth is oceans. Oceans have lots of water in them, quintillions of gallons of water. According to the definitions stated above, WET means to be covered with water. Well, since the ocean has a depth that means the water in it is covered by water. Which, in this case, makes the ocean wet. Or as the The East Texan states: “Rather than looking at water as a collection of molecules, in order to fully understand, we must look at water as individual Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms. These molecules are surrounded by, or covered by, more molecules of Hydrogen and Oxygen. Based on this simple explanation, water already matches the definition: water covers more water, ergo making the latter water wet.”

II. The Paint Brush Case
            a.      Voters and CON, imagine that you have a yellow paint brush and have a white piece of paper. Any paper, any brand of brush. You paint the paper yellow. As the East Texan states once again: “In order for something to alter a different object, it must hold the characteristics of which it is altering.” Using logic to interpret this statement we can find that since water makes things wet, it must be wet as well. Another instance this happens is if you put a meatball in a freezer. Since the freezer is cold, the meatball turns cold. I will refer to this case as the Paint Brush Case.

III. Saturation is Cool Beans
            a.      Since the definitions stated in 0.1 say that in order for something to be wet it must also be “saturated”. Saturated means that a liquid is inside substance. Or in this case, water is inside water. So unless CON would like to make the argument that water is not in water, water is wet.

IV. Majority Rules! Majority Rules!
            a.      According to a survey of nearly 100 average people, 46% stated that water was wet. 41% stated water wasn’t wet. Everyone else said they didn’t care. Clearly, this means that out of these 100 people, more people thought water was wet. And as kids say: “MAJORITY RULES YOU IDIOT!”.

V. Logic Smogic
             a. If water isn't wet, isn't water dry? Since there isn't such thing as "dry water", then it must be wet.


VI. Conclusions to Openings
              a.      Once again thanks to PressF4Respect for accepting this debate. I await your response. Also forgive me for the weird formatting. Copy and pasting does NOT work from Word to DART. Peace Out- AvoidDeath.

Forfeited
Round 2
Published:
Sad to see PressF4Respect forfeit. I extend my arguments
Published:
Firstly, I would like to thank AvoidDeath for having this debate with me. I apologize for forfeiting the first round, and will make up for it here. In this round, I will provide both my main argument and rebuttals of Pro’s points.

Arguments:
  1. The Conditional Argument
Wetness describes the state of something being wet. “Wet” is a conditional adjective [1], meaning that it is “subject to, implying, or dependent upon a condition” [2]. The condition of an object being “wet” is dependent upon being, as defined by Pro in the first round, “covered or saturated with water or another liquid.” Likewise, as all conditional adjectives are based upon a condition, the state of the condition being removed would result in the antonym (the state that the object is not in), applying. In this case, as wetness is described as the characteristic of being covered or saturated with water or another liquid, the removal of the water (or other liquid) which caused the object to be wet in the first place would render the object “unwet”. This state of being “unwet” is what we call dryness. 

As conditional adjectives describe an object subject to, implying, or dependant upon a condition, and the fact that all conditional states can be made into their respective antonyms by the removal of said condition, the presence of the condition can also be described as the absence of its antonym. This is known as a double negative. In this case, the adjective “wet” can also be described as “not dry”. With this said, it can be observed that all conditionals are relative, that is, they only make sense with regard to the antonym which they are compared to. In short, you cannot have one without the concept of the other. Nothing can be “wet” without the idea of it being able to be “dry”. 

The process of the object becoming “dry” involves the removal of water from the object. This makes sense for everything that can be made “wet”. Spill water on the counter, it becomes “wet”. You can then wipe away the water, and it would become “dry”. After your wash your clothes they are “wet”. Put them in the dryer or hang them and they will become “dry”. Step out of the shower, and you are “wet”. Wipe yourself with a towel, and you will become “dry”. However, if you claim that water is “wet”, then by the very definition of “wetness”, it must also be able to be made “dry”. Here, we run into a problem. The process of making something dry involves the removal of water. However, since the object in question IS water, by removing the water, we are left with nothing. Since the water no longer exists, there is no way of describing it. Hence, there is no “dry water”. Since wet things must be able to be dried, and since water cannot be dried (it no longer exists if it is dried), the only logical conclusion is that water cannot be wet. 

  1. The Comparative Argument
Along with being a conditional adjective, “wet” is also a comparative adjective. A comparative adjective is one that juxtaposes the quality of the object in the particular regard that it is modifying to the quality of something else, in the same regard [3]. Comparative adjectives describing the physical characteristics of a singular object (an object not being compared to anything else) only makes sense in the context of the surrounding environment. That is to say, the adjectives for a singular object compare the quality of that object to its surrounding environment. A fire is really hot when compared to the environment within a house (at room temperature), but not if it is in an environment at equal temperature (say, inside an oven). A light bulb is really bright when shone inside a dark room, but not if it is shone in a room with an equal luminosity. 

The same logic applies for wetness. Something is considered “wet” when it is wetter than its surrounding atmosphere. Going back to the examples posed in the first argument, the counter, the clothes, and the person coming out of the shower are considered “wet” because they are covered with water, while the air isn’t. If the surrounding environment is also filled with water, then the quality of “wetness” loses its meaning, since there is no difference between the wetness of the object and the wetness of its surroundings. Since water is defined as a molecule of H2O (two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to an oxygen atom), saying that these molecules of water are “wet” would make no sense, since the surrounding environment of the molecule is just as “wet” as the molecule itself.

  1. The Comparative Argument (Part 2)
Since “wet” is a comparative adjective, it can also be applied in degrees [4]. Saying that something is “wet” is truly saying that it is wetter than something else. Comparative adjectives describing the physical characteristics of an object compared to the same characteristics of another object. The difference of the prevalence of the physical characteristics can be explained with degrees. Suppose I have two sponges. One is dry, and the other has absorbed a few drops of water. The second sponge would be “wetter” than the first. If we submerge the first sponge in a tank of water, then it will have become “wetter” than the second. Since the condition of wetness is dependant on the amount of water that is on/absorbed in the object, by adding more water to an object, you are inextricably making it “wetter”. 

Again, we run into a problem when claiming that water is “wet”. By the logic above, adding water to water should make the water “wetter”. However, this is not the case. The water molecules themselves haven’t become wetter, there’s just more of them. Therefore, water cannot be wet, because adding more water to water doesn’t make the water “wetter”.

Rebuttals (R = Rebuttal):
Now that I have presented my initial arguments, I will now proceed with rebutting my opponent’s arguments.

RI. Our Oceans
The most obvious example of water on earth is oceans. Oceans have lots of water in them, quintillions of gallons of water. According to the definitions stated above, WET means to be covered with water. Well, since the ocean has a depth that means the water in it is covered by water. Which, in this case, makes the ocean wet. Or as the The East Texan states: "Rather than looking at water as a collection of molecules, in order to fully understand, we must look at water as individual Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms. These molecules are surrounded by, or covered by, more molecules of Hydrogen and Oxygen. Based on this simple explanation, water already matches the definition: water covers more water, ergo making the latter water wet."
Since water is defined as the individual H2O molecules which constitutes it, I can argue, with the arguments presented in the second point of my initial argument (wetness depends on the surrounding environment), that the individual molecules of water in the oceans are not wet. 

RII. The Paint Brush Case
Voters and CON, imagine that you have a yellow paint brush and have a white piece of paper. Any paper, any brand of brush. You paint the paper yellow. As the East Texan states once again: “In order for something to alter a different object, it must hold the characteristics of which it is altering.” Using logic to interpret this statement we can find that since water makes things wet, it must be wet as well. Another instance this happens is if you put a meatball in a freezer. Since the freezer is cold, the meatball turns cold. I will refer to this case as the Paint Brush Case.
The “Paint Brush Case” does not apply to all cases. For example, fire burns stuff (makes stuff burnt). This doesn’t mean the fire is burnt. Onions make people cry when you chop them, but this doesn’t mean that the Onion itself cries (it would be very weird if it did). Since this point claims that the Paint Brush Case holds true for ALL cases (see bolded portion of quote), and I have presented cases to which it does not hold true, I have invalidated this principle. Since (at best) there are certain things which do and do not follow the “Paint Brush Case”, Pro must prove why water does follow the “Paint Brush Case”. 

RIII. Saturation is Cool Beans
Since the definitions stated in 0.1 say that in order for something to be wet it must also be "saturated". Saturated means that a liquid is inside substance. Or in this case, water is inside water. So unless CON would like to make the argument that water is not in water, water is wet.
Since water is defined as molecules of H2O, the statement “water is not in water” is false. H2O molecules are not found inside other H2O molecules, therefore water is not in water. 
 
RIV. Majority Rules! Majority Rules!
According to a survey of nearly 100 average people, 46% stated that water was wet. 41% stated water wasn’t wet. Everyone else said they didn’t care. Clearly, this means that out of these 100 people, more people thought water was wet. And as kids say: "MAJORITY RULES YOU IDIOT!"
This is an ad populum fallacy. The number of people who believe a claim (that water is wet, in this case) is entirely irrelevant to whether or not it is actually true.

RV. Logic Smogic
If water isn't wet, isn't water dry? Since there isn't such thing as "dry water", then it must be wet. 
Since all conditional adjectives have an antonym, and water cannot be dry, the adjective “wet” cannot be applied to water. I have thoroughly explained this in the first point of my initial argument. 
 
Conclusion:
Having presented my initial arguments, as well as having rebutted those of Pro, I now bring it back to Pro to defend his points, as well as to rebut mine.

Sources:
  1. https://www.ef.com/ca/english-resources/english-grammar/type-2-conditional/
  2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conditional
  3. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/comparison-adjectives-bigger-biggest-more-interesting
  4. https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/parts-of-speech/adjectives/what-is-a-comparative-adjective.html

Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet
Added:
--> @AvoidDeath
I look forward to your counter arguments
Contender
#16
Added:
--> @AvoidDeath
Don't you hate it when Dart messes up your formatting?
Yup, but after going through the DDO ordeal, the minor formatting errors of DART seem trivial.
Contender
#15
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
I should have my argument done by the end of the day.
Instigator
#14
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
Don't you hate it when Dart messes up your formatting?
Instigator
#13
Added:
--> @AvoidDeath
1.
1.
1.
was as a result of pasting
I.
II.
III.
from google docs into DART.
Contender
#12
Added:
--> @AvoidDeath
The main arguments are supposed to list out as:
1.
2.
3.
Instead they list out as:
1.
1.
1.
Woops lol.
Contender
#11
Added:
--> @AvoidDeath
2 days, 22 hours, and 20 minutes to be exact
Contender
#10
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
just wanted to remind you your argument is due in 2 days.
Instigator
#9
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
prepare for funky argument titles.
Instigator
#8
Added:
--> @AvoidDeath
The best way to avoid death is to drink Gatorade that's wet
#7
Added:
--> @AvoidDeath
"No lmao, I was Gatorade"
Derp
Contender
#6
Added:
--> @Ragnar
No lmao, I was Gatorade. I was banned for multi accounting and I was unbanned on this account. On ddo I was cyborghacker, and pls don't look at that account.
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @AvoidDeath
I don't think I've welcomed you to the site yet, so welcome.
Based on your advertising tactic, I am guessing you're not new to online debating. If you were on DDO, who were you?
Anyway, here's hoping the debate is at least as good as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoQW03UFqQw
#4
Added:
Water wet???
#3
Added:
--> @Ragnar, @TheRealNihilist, @oromagi, @crossed, @WaterPhoenix
lemme pull some people here so I can start a comment argument
Instigator
#2
No votes yet