Water is NOT wet
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Again, ask for definitions if you are confused.
DefinitionsWet: 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".
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
Water: An odorless liquid composed of H2O molecules
Did not advance beyond a definition game, but con was able to show that by pro's own offered definition if water consists of water it is wet. Once that is in place, everything else feels like special pleading.
R1 con won with the argument pro argues about something to be wet liquids should be integrated within the subject. There was no BOP provided that challenged the properties of liquids and their wetting properties. A liquid may itself be wet but need not necessarily make the object it interacts with wet. Eg:- Oil and water both are immisible and will form layers rather than interacting with eat other. PRO 's argument that humans consist of 60% water and thus humans are wet make no sense to me. A water balloon has water its inside it, does not mean it is wet.
PRO could have won had he bother to search few facts such as:
Water does not wet waxed surfaces because the cohesive forces within the drops are stronger than the adhesive forces between the drops and the wax.
All CON had to do was refute PRO , he did and he won, according to me.
You guys are welcome to vote
bump
Y'all can vote
bump
bump
bump
I thought thiis will be a debate about science and properties of liquid, turned out be about language and literature. bleh!
"Pro's definition says liquid. Pro now wants to change the definition to advance a new argument. No."
The liquid is a state. North Korea is authoritarian, but North Korea is not composed of authoritarianism, it is composed of the people and the land.
that was quick
Likely opening case saving for later
Here are the first entries for "wet" from several reputable dictionaries:
Covered or saturated with water or another liquid.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/wet
consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wet
Covered or soaked with a liquid, such as water: a wet towel.
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=wet
Seems wet to me.