Instigator / Pro
Points: 8

Water is NOT wet

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Death23
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
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
Points: 14
Description
Again, ask for definitions if you are confused.
Round 1
Published:
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:

Published:
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
Published:
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. 



Published:
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
Published:
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. 
Published:
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.

Added:
--> @PressF4Respect, @RationalMadman, @oromagi
You guys are welcome to vote
Instigator
#10
Added:
bump
Instigator
#9
Added:
--> @RationalMadman, @Trent0405, @Ragnar, @PressF4Respect
Y'all can vote
Instigator
#8
Added:
bump
Instigator
#7
Added:
bump
Instigator
#6
Added:
bump
Instigator
#5
Added:
I thought thiis will be a debate about science and properties of liquid, turned out be about language and literature. bleh!
#4
Added:
--> @Death23
"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.
Instigator
#3
Added:
that was quick
#2
Added:
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.
Contender
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.