Instigator / Pro
8
1435
rating
48
debates
37.5%
won
Topic

Water is NOT wet

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
6
Sources points
4
4
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
2
2

With 2 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...

Death23
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
14
1585
rating
18
debates
66.67%
won
Description
~ 47 / 5,000

Again, ask for definitions if you are confused.

Round 1
Pro
Definitions

Water: An odorless liquid composed of H2O molecules[1]

Wet: consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)[2]

Argument(Yes, only one point)

Knowing that in order for something to be wet, liquids should be integrated within the subject. When you see a mat that is soaked wet, water is INSIDE the mat. 

In order to have something integrated[3], there must be a vehicle and a filler. For the example above, the mat is the vehicle and the water is the filler. There needs to be a liquid and SOMETHING ELSE.

If you dip your hands in the water, it is your hand that is wet, not the water. 

Water itself does not contain 2 separate substances that are needed in order to meet the condition of "wet". 

Thus, water is not wet. 

Sources:

Con
Definitions

Wet: consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)
This is Pro's definition. This definition is inclusive of substances which are "consisting of [...] liquid (such as water)". Clearly, water consists of a liquid. It follows that water is wet.

Pro contends, baselessly, that "in order for something to be wet, liquids should be integrated within the subject" and also that "There needs to be a liquid and SOMETHING ELSE." However this position is contradicted by Pro's own definition for "wet", which is inclusive of substances that are "consisting of [...] liquid".

Round 2
Pro
This is Pro's definition. This definition is inclusive of substances which are "consisting of [...] liquid (such as water)". Clearly, water consists of a liquid. It follows that water is wet.
I would counter that using only one source[1]

It clearly states: "If you're talking about something that is made up of other things, consist is your word. A molecule consists of atoms and their bonds. 'Consist' is often used in the past tense, so you're likely to hear it used in a sentence like "the game consisted of fourteen players and one stick." But you can use it in the present tense too. Grammar consists of many, many different rules, all of which are applied differently, depending on whether you're speaking or writing. The clubs all consist of singers, and singers only. If you play an instrument, look elsewhere, bud."

It is clear as day and twilight that something wet could hold liquid, contain liquid, but since the wet thing must be MADE OUT OF liquids and not being the liquid itself, water does not meet the requirement to be "wet". Humans are, in the most part, made out of the water, thus humans are wet technically. Water is not wet because it is not made out of other things. it is a pure substance at its definition: If you have CO2 mixed in H2O, it ain't water. 

This is on top of that CON's other definitions, other than the one I have given, mentions nothing about "Consisting of liquids like water", and merely asserts that wet stuff holds and/or soaks in water.

Pro contends, baselessly, that "in order for something to be wet, liquids should be integrated within the subject" and also that "There needs to be a liquid and SOMETHING ELSE." However this position is contradicted by Pro's own definition for "wet", which is inclusive of substances that are "consisting of [...] liquid".
CON contends, baselessly, that "something can be consist of itself" and also that "Water consists of itself". However, these claims are being disproven by the very fact that "Consists of" is not eligible when it is claimed to consist of itself, because the very phrase is used when something is made up of other things, such as exams with students, papers and a teacher, and home with furniture and people. You can say both of them with the phrase, but not with water and itself.

CON has given zero sources and has merely tried to tear apart PRO's argument with a failed attempt in hand. My point remains rigid. 



Con
Nah. Things can consist only of one thing. This is often how "consist" is used. It's fine. Often people say that something "consisted only of" and then follow it with only one thing. See usage examples here https://ludwig.guru/s/consisted+only+of




Round 3
Pro
It seems like that CON is drifting the topic away from its very purpose. 

Nah. Things can consist only of one thing. This is often how "consist" is used. It's fine. Often people say that something "consisted only of" and then follow it with only one thing. See usage examples here  
I do not care about any of his sources. In fact, this "argument" does not give support to his argument that "Things can consist of itself". Things can consist of one thing, but even though humans consist of 60% water or something like that, humans are wet, the water isn't. 

PRO has made no effort refuting CON's points made in R2. 

Argument

Dried water? 

Do you know? According to evaporation, the process of liquid turning into a gas, water dries and disappears. 

So if the water is dried, it disappears, unless it is artificially mixed with silicon powder, and they make the water encased inside. the "Dry water" is not really water, just like British tea mixed with American lemonade isn't really water. 

So if something is wet, it is not dry. If it is dry, it is not wet. the concept of "Wet" is subjective and relative. If something cannot be dry(As water either disappears or is no longer actual WATER), it cannot be wet. 

So, according to what I have above, Water cannot be wet because relatively it cannot be dry.



I rest my case. 
Con
My opponent's definition says things consisting of liquid are wet. Water consists only of liquid. Therefore water is wet. End of story.

Pro's argument about water being other than liquid goes against his own definition for water:

Water: An odorless liquid composed of H2O molecules
Pro's definition says liquid. Pro now wants to change the definition to advance a new argument. No.