Instigator / Pro

1500

rating

debates

50.0%

won

Topic

#5209

Water is wet

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

ProfessorS17Jr

Tags

Water

Parameters

Publication date: 01.28.2024 02:21AM
Last updated date: 02.22.2024 07:57PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 5
Time for argument: Three days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

ProfessorS17Jr

1510

rating

debates

68.75%

won

Description

There is an ambiguity when it comes to the word "wet," which has lead some people to believe that while water can make things wet, it cannot itself be wet. This topic takes a break from a lot of the topics on the more serious side, but for as dumb as such a topic might seem, there is actually a debate about this going on around the internet. In these types of situations, people will most commonly turn to the first definition that appears when they search up the definition, but as it would turn out, not even this is enough, and there is a valid reason why. Things actually go pretty deep, and at the end of the day, before you even try to make any sort of argument, you first need to define wet. But if you've already made up your mind about this topic, then whatever definition you create is going to be biased, favoring your opinion because it fits the parameters of your definition. Is there a right answer? Yes. And whether or not it even exists yet, there should be, because this is an objective thing. But my own personal logic and reason and investigation has, on the surface, led me to the conclusion that water is in fact wet, but when digging deeper, I find that even when using credible sources out there to find objective definitions, it is still really hard to determine whether or not water is wet.

Round 1

Tickbeat

01.28.2024 02:54AM

Pro

I mentioned in the longer description that my own logic and reason has led me to the conclusion that water is wet. So, you're probably wondering what said logic and reason is.

1. Wet and dry are opposites. If this is true, then water can either be wet, or dry, because there are only two possible states, because they are opposites. This means that if we can know that water cannot be one state, then it must automatically be the other. And do you think water is dry? If you answer yes, I genuinely would like to know how on earth can water be dry. And if you answer no, then you're probably going to follow it up with the proposal of a new state that is neither wet nor dry. This is commonly something that I see amongst people who believe that water is not wet. But where's the evidence for this? Are there any papers on it? Are there any articles on it? Is there a definition for it? The answer to all of these questions, is no.

2. Something I also mentioned in the long description is that not even the official definitions are good enough. How can this be the case? The official definitions are designed to provide a concrete standard for how a word should be interpreted, even under scrutiny. But what if I told you that two of the most credible sources actually have contradicting definitions for the word wet? Here is the definition that you will find when you first search it up, which will be by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition:

Covered or soaked with a liquid, such as water.

Now here is the definition by the Mariam Webster Dictionary:

consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water).

You might not have caught that, but it all boils down to two words that are included in one, and not included in the other: consisting of. Water is not covered or soaked in water, water is not containing water, water is not covered with water, but it is consisting of water, because it is water. Thus, the defining characteristic here is the term "consisting of," in which the first definition does not include it, suggesting that water is not wet, but the other definition does include it, suggesting that water is wet.

So clearly, not even the definition of wet can save us here. But I know something that can. Instead of looking at the definition of wet, let's look at the definition of dry:

Free of liquid or moisture. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition)

Free or relatively free from a liquid and especially water. (Mariam Webster Dictionary)

These two definitions do not contradict each other. They are both saying that to be dry is to be free of any kind of liquid or moisture. But note here that the definition by the Mariam Webster Dictionary does not include the word "moisture" as apart of its list, which suggests that according to the Mariam Webster Dictionary, water vapor is not wet, but according to the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition, water vapor is wet. But right now, we're talking about liquid water. And clearly, it is stating that in order to be dry, it must be free of liquid, such as water. And water is not free of water. It is water, so it cannot be free of itself. This is the only set of definitions that do not contradict each other, and therefore are the most credible standard to go by.

And, the definitions of dry suggest, even more than already known, that wet and dry are opposites, and so something can either be one or the other, not some secret third option. Something can either be free of liquid/moisture, or not free of liquid/moisture. Thus, something can either be dry, or wet.

ProfessorS17Jr

01.31.2024 02:54AM

Con

Forfeited

Round 2

Tickbeat

01.31.2024 03:23PM

Pro

As my opponent has forfeited, I don't have anything more to say, as I do not have anything to say in response.

ProfessorS17Jr

02.01.2024 02:16AM

Con

I would like to apologize to my opponent for forfeiting the last round. I ran out of time due to unforeseen circumstances. Considering how much this topic is debated on the internet, it's going to be interesting arguing for water not being wet. But here goes.

Wet and dry are opposites. If this is true, then water can either be wet, or dry, because there are only two possible states, because they are opposites.

This is more of a genuine question than a rebuttal, but if these two states are polar opposites, then by definition, shouldn't wet mean completely filled, covered, or soaked by liquid? Since the definition of dry is one extreme, then wet should be the other extreme, right? The definitions given for wet, while contradicting, don't specify if wet means to be partially, mostly or fully covered, consisting of, or soaked by liquid.

Additionally, as Pro has explained, there are various definitions for the word “wet”, with some contradicting the other. If we try to define wetness purely by semantics, then it will be difficult getting a clear picture. However, since water is a chemical compound, we can define wetness using science.

According to Dr. Emma Graves from BBC Sciencefocus, scientists define wetness as “a liquid’s ability to stick to a surface.” Based on this definition alone, water would only be wet when touching a solid surface, not by itself. This is supported by the idea that a state of wetness is determined by the balance between cohesive and adhesive forces of the water. As explained by the UCSB ScienceLine, cohesive forces attract molecules within a liquid to each other, resulting in surface tension, or the tendency for liquids to shrink into smaller areas. In contrast, adhesive forces attract the molecules between a liquid and a solid, which makes a liquid more likely to spread. If cohesive forces are stronger than adhesive ones, then the liquid shrinks into a small drop and falls off. This would make it dry. On the other hand, if adhesive forces are stronger, then a liquid spreads across the surface, making it more likely to stick and thus, making it wet.

Now, if we think about how this relates to water, water would not be wet by itself. This is because water, which is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, undergoes hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bonding is essentially the process that allows for hydrogen to bond with oxygen. According to Mihai Andrei from ZME Science, this process affects water’s properties, such as boiling and surface tension, by increasing the cohesive forces within the liquid. This makes surface tension more likely to happen and thus, water more likely to dry. Because of this process, water is not so great at “wetting” objects as other liquids are.

In conclusion, water is not wet because it lacks the ability to stick to a surface as a result of its strong cohesive processes.

Sources used:

Round 3

Tickbeat

02.01.2024 04:27PM

Pro

To answer your first question:

There is a difference between being able to switch between two different states, and having a new state entirely. Being able to switch from wet to dry and possibly be in some kind of in between state doesn't mean there is a third state. This still means that wet and dry are opposites.

Certainly, the scientific definition for wet should be favorable. It's just that the regular definitions that you find by the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition and the Mariam Webster Dictionary are supposed to also be favorable. Of course, if someone looked up the definition of wet and read, "For the adhesive forces between water molecules and a solid surface to be greater than the cohesive forces between water molecules," they'd probably be really confused if they didn't know chemistry. But I still think it should be there.

What it really boils down to is what definition you view to be the most authoritative, because different definitions will give you different answers.

And, if you use your own logic, like I originally did, you might just conclude that water is actually wet, because water can't be dry. It seems very strange to me the idea that water could be dry. Thus, I can only conclude that water is wet.

My question for you is, which definition do you find the most authoritative?

ProfessorS17Jr

02.04.2024 04:27PM

Con

Forfeited

Round 4

Tickbeat

02.06.2024 07:57PM

Pro

I do not have much to add to this debate, as my opponent has once again forfeited, but I do want to add one more thing:

If you make a scientific definition for wet, I would also like to see the scientific definition for dry, and it should line up with the scientific definition of wet, because it suggests that water can sometimes be dry.

ProfessorS17Jr

02.09.2024 07:57PM

Con

Forfeited

Round 5

Tickbeat

02.12.2024 07:57PM

Pro

Forfeited

ProfessorS17Jr

02.15.2024 07:57PM

Con

#10

Forfeited

Mall

02.14.2024 10:24AM

So much for this.
Water is wet.

Every time someone uses water it's wet.

When someone asks do you want some water, there is no clarifying questions of is it frozen or unfrozen, wet or dry.

It be no surprise that ice has a degree of moisture.

Tickbeat

02.13.2024 02:51PM

Just post an argument 💀

Tickbeat

02.05.2024 05:40AM

-->

@LogicalDebater01

It's just that with 8,000,000,000 people on this planet, we can't all agree on one by now. Or at least, it'll be hard.

LogicalDebater01

02.01.2024 01:37PM

Ambiguity exists because of people.. that is what we can say. Ambiguity can cease to exist.. when all people accept one interpretation and no more, but can any one with the will power do such a thing or are they incapable of doing such a thing?

RationalMadman

02.17.2024 02:54AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Sources
Only Con links to sources and the sources are used to provide backing for the definition of 'wet' and the fact water often dries things. Con also used a BBC reliable source to prove scientists aren't sure water is wet.

Pro refers to a dictionary forcing the user to need to Google if it's real or a lie and misspells Merriam-Webster again and again while at it. The sources seem to be used solely to prove that to be DRY (not necessarily wet) requires lack of moisture and/or water.

Is water free of itself or is itself on and all over itself? This basically opens a line of philosophical thinking that Pro barely touches the surface of and means the sources go to Con because all Pro did was very poorly try to make the user need to Google definitions to check Pro wasn't lying but the usage of them doesn't really hammer home Pro's case just lays groundwork.

Tabula Rasa disclaimer
I am slightly biased towards what Con is arguing because I know for sexual purposes, water definitely is a terrible lubricant and people who very-often shower often have peeling skin if they don't properly hydrate (inside their body not water on the outside) and put cream on their skin in the places.

Arguments
Con's logic is that water fails to cling to solid surfaces in a way liquids are meant to. I am not sure if the stickiness itself is a necessary component of wetness but it's backed by a source. Furthermore, Pro keeps arguing that science definitions and dictionary definitions are both valid, which hurts Pro's case not Con's.

Pro's case seems to be if something isn't dry, it's wet. While this is a flawed dichotomy, Con doesn't fully capitalise on it, instead points out this is a passive sounding statement (which I don't think is right, it didn't sound like a question) but then does dedicate to a murky waters type angle.

Con's entire thesis is that we can't really tell if water is wet because some definitions include properties this anti-lubricating non-clingy thing water is lack. Pro doesn't quite get this. What Pro does is try to muddy the watters back but in doing so, destroys their own burden of proof. Since now both sides are saying water can be wet in some context on some definition but water can't be wet in other contexts and definitions.

This favours Con, since we can't then definitively say water is wet.

"And, if you use your own logic, like I originally did, you might just conclude that water is actually wet, because water can't be dry. It seems very strange to me the idea that water could be dry. Thus, I can only conclude that water is wet."

Pro ASKS ME as the reader to USE MY OWN LOGIC. My own logic fits more with Con's case here, I am ALLOWED BY PRO to drop tabula rasa for reasons I cannot comprehend. Thus I will use my own knowledge that water is one of the most deceptive things and sex in water is fucking grating.

Forfeits demand me to give conduct to Pro.

This is also technically a full forfeit as after the first round Con debates, Con forfeited every Round. However, I believe Con actually won the debate in one single Round. I am torn and will give Con the win.