Instigator / Pro
7
1500
rating
16
debates
46.88%
won
Topic
#6079
Water is wet
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1479
rating
19
debates
50.0%
won
Description
This question has been debated online for a long time. I myself have debated this in the past. But I've seen more since then, and have considered both sides, and I still have come to the conclusion that water is wet. And I'm going to go at this a bit differently than I did last time, in a more conclusive way. Do not base any arguments off of a technicality when you clearly know what the statement meant.
Round 1
Pro
#1
I have looked at both sides of the argument, and I personally have still come to the conclusion that water is wet. This is mainly because there are two things that can't seem to be properly addressed by water-isn't-wet advocates:
1. Water is not dry, therefore it is wet. Wet and dry are opposites, so when it is not at all one, it is the other. We can all agree that water is not dry, so how come we cannot all agree that water is wet? We all agree that water is definitively not dry, yet some people still say it isn't wet either. What other option is there? Well some might make the argument that water is a third state that isn't wet, nor dry. But this concept isn't real, and they're speaking completely out of their ahh when they say this, because there is no evidence for this third state, there are no definitions for it, and so there absolutely no case for its existence. This concept is only ever proposed when people are trying to say that water is not wet, and they have no way of showing that it exists.
2. Some say, "Water makes things wet, but it is not in and of itself wet." But this simply is not possible. A thing cannot make something else wet if it is not in and of itself wet. If I touched a brick, my hand wouldn't get wet, because the brick is not wet. If I touched water, my hand would get wet, because water is wet. It simply doesn't make any sense to say, "If I touched water, my hand would get wet, because water is not wet." The water must be wet to transfer the property of wetness onto things.
Conclusion: Until these things are adequately addressed, there is no way water cannot be wet.
Con
#2
Tickbeat , i appreciate u for ur personal conclusions that water is wet in the beginning of first round of debate
alright but i prefer others and u , to decide and make ur personal decision upon ur perception , that
what is what
instead of impose what i perceive
if maybe i perceive my opponent wronge that's not make my opponent wronge ( nor right )
Tickbeat say : " Water is not dry, therefore it is wet. " ....... Water makes things wet
everything is't white or black , sometimes something is black and something white but that's not true too........... sometimes
everything matters from reality to ur perception ....... reality is't always what u perceive ...... as water maybe water its objective for u and me but our feelings r our feelings and our feelings r not objective ......... sometimes i don't feel what u feel
Conclusion: i don't impose what i think on u but u impose on u what u think ........ water is wet or not its upon our feelings for us .... but our feelings not define truth but only for us
Round 2
Pro
#3
"Everything isn't black or white, sometimes something is black and sometimes something is white, but that's not always true."
Yes I edited the quote, but all I did was make it grammatically correct because the original message was borderline incomprehensible.
Indeed, not everything works in opposites. But wet and dry are opposites. Sure, not everything is black and white, but not everything isn't black and white either. And in this case, wet and dry is black and white.
Con then goes on a tangent about how reality isn't always the way we perceive it. This is also true. There are quadrillions of solar neutrinos passing through your body every second. You don't see those. But we study the universe enough to know that, despite the fact that we initially don't perceive the reality of those solar neutrinos. And so we have studied water and discovered its nature based on that. So the nature of liquid and water doesn't "depend on your perception of reality." Water objectively exists the way it does.
Conclusion: Con inadequately responded to my first point, which I then responded to back, and has not at all responded to my second point. So I have held both of my original points as correct, and so far, no adequate rebuttal has been made on con's part.
Con
#4
😊 My dear if u prefer to play dumb then i've to respect these red herrings
but that's against the essence of debate to blame each other ..... so i don't like to make it against u
according to standard Definition of " wet "
covered or saturated with water or another liquid
if we say water makes others things wet , its maybe true sometimes , but if u say water is wet then that's ur illusions
we've to understand that to being wet and to make wet is different
Round 3
Pro
#5
Yeah? Well the definition of wet according to Merriam Webster is: consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water). Water is consisting of liquid, therefore it is wet. So it's one word against the other here, which is why I didn't cite them.
Plus, water can be "covered with" liquid, because the water molecules are covered with other water molecules, existing in a liquid relationship with each other.
If being wet and making things wet are different things, explain how something that isn't wet can make things wet.
Conclusion: Con has still not adequately addressed my original points, therefore I still hold them to be correct.
Con
#6
My dear Pro of debate u find Merriam Webster's definition of wet being wronge becoz , it proves ur statement ( Water is wet ) completely wronge
As Tickbeat blieve that :
water can be "covered with" liquid, because the water molecules are covered with other water molecules, existing in a liquid relationship with each other.
according to ur believe Gold is also liquid too . as lower molecules of Gold is covered by upper molecules of Gold and in relationship with each other ..... and wet too.....
and ofcourse according to ur words if the most upper molecules of water , who r not under cover by other molecules , what u say about them .... they r not wet u make contradiction on ur believes ..........
Btw , i like to ans what u ask from me :
If being wet and making things wet are different things, explain how something that isn't wet can make things wet.
when water get in contact with something that such as a surface of steel then water make a layer of its molecule upon it , when u touch that thing u actually touch not that steel but after the laywer of water ........ when u contact in with molecules of water upon the surface u feel wet little sticky ..
alright i like to make it more easy to get , when we drink alcohol (wine )we feel lazy its dos't mean wine itself is lazy , in the same way water makes effect on other things not on itself
Round 4
Pro
#7
You completely missed why I used Merriam Webster's definition of wet. I specifically said before the debate that I wasn't going to bring up specific definitions, and instead was going about it in another way (the way of which you now can see). So when you brought up the definition of wet, I did too, specifically to show you that they contradict each other, hence why I didn't use them before in any of my arguments.
"According to your beliefs, gold is liquid, too. As lower molecules of gold are covered by upper molecules of gold, and in a relationship with each other, and wet, too."
First of all, it's actually gold atoms, not gold molecules. Second, this is just a blatant misquote. You intentionally changed the wording very slightly so it would fit your argument, and hoped that I wouldn't notice. Unfortunately for you, I did. Because I specifically said that the water molecules are covered with other water molecules, existing in a liquid relationship with each other. Did you miss that part? I'm sure you didn't, you just took it out on purpose. It is not liquid if the molecules / atoms are not existing in a liquid relationship with each other, so gold is only liquid if you have melted it into a liquid. Otherwise, it's not, and is therefore not wet.
"When water gets into contact with something, such as the surface of steel, then water makes a layer of molecules upon it. When you touch that thing, you don't touch the steel until after you've touched the layer of water. When you come into contact with molecules of water upon the surface, you feel wet and sticky."
Let me know if I messed up the interpretation of any part of this quote. Yes, you feel wet and sticky when you touch something wet. That's because your hand has now become wet, due to the fact that the property of wetness has been transferred onto your hand via the water. How did the water do that? Because it is wet. You haven't explained anything in this quote related to my question of "How can water make things wet if it is not in and of itself wet?"
Conclusion: Con has still not adequately addressed my points, therefore I still hold them to be correct.
Con
#8
Mercury is a metal in liquid state , can we say Mercury is wet ?if gold in liquid state make things wet like water in liquid state too
What's goin on with the rhythm of Tickbeat
haha , what u think is may not be right but i admire u for that
i don't think what u say , is exactly i think but may be 😊 , i don't wanna hurt u
but there's some objection my lord
Objection no.1 :
when i consider molecules of gold in my example ,
"According to Tickbeat beliefs, gold is liquid, too. As lower molecules of gold are covered by upper molecules of gold, and in a relationship with each other, and wet, too."
but my opponent consider my considerations inappropriate and
My opponent oppose and say : "First of all, it's actually gold atoms, not gold molecules"
but i prefer to clear one thing that ,
molecule : a group of atoms bonded together (group of atoms of gold make a molecules it makes a some piece of gold , which my example valid like ur )
so in my example molecules of gold and ur example of water looks exactly same , and r liquids according to ur methodology of liquid and of being wet state of liquids
Objection no.2 :
Tickbeat say : It (gold) is not liquid if the atoms are not existing in a liquid relationship with each other, so gold is only liquid if you have melted it into a liquid. Otherwise, it's not, and is therefore not wet.
i like to introduce some to u dear , IMF
Intermolecular forces, often abbreviated to IMF, Intermolecular forces are the attractions between molecules, which determine many of the physical properties of a substance and r responsible to hold molecules together
My dear forces r between every molecules of every substances from water to gold
if IM-Forces get weaken by external forces such as temperature , every substance changed its physical nature from solid to liquid or from liquid to gas
Ice have stronger Im forces due to which ice , looks like solid to us ....... may according to ur methodology Ice can't make things wet ..... but c when ice become in contact with thing that has high temperature than ice , ice make a layer of liquid water upon its surface and same thing happend , u touch surface of that thing and find water upon ur skin , which we named wet , what u named it 😊
Objection no.3 : (this objection is technical but if u find it hard then just read it once for general knowledge)
Tickbeat say : gold is only liquid if you have melted it into a liquid. Otherwise, it's not, and is therefore not wet.
if gold get melt and then get in contact with something solid , can we consider that gold makes things wet too
ofcourse yeah , but to feel that is hard i guess
Most important objection
Objection no.4 :
Tickbeat say : gold is only liquid if you have melted it into a liquid. Otherwise, it's not, and is therefore not wet.
when gold get melt and make other things wet , water in solid can make it too ?
as we can say gold and water makes things wet
can u say that gold is wet too ? as u say water is wet
haha nope my dear , but what u say
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
my dear opponent feel sad and say
You haven't explained ............. my question of "How can water make things wet if it is not in and of itself wet?"
Alright my dear i can describe by ur highness i can explain it again
wet = something that is covered or saturated with water or another liquid
when contact with some solid ( iron plate ) then , there's a laywer of water covered the surface of iron plate , exactly when u water get in contact with our skin , water makes its laywer upon ur skin , which all called wet for u , hence ur skin is wet becoz laywer water is upon it
its all about presence of water upon ur skin or something else which is solid
Round 5
Pro
#9
"Mercury is a metal in a liquid state, can we say mercury is wet?"
Yes, liquid mercury is wet. Mercury is liquid at room temperature. But when mercury is cold enough to be a solid, it is no longer wet. Something is wet when it is in a liquid state.
And yes, I am aware that two atoms of gold covalently bonded together is molecular gold, which can be referred to as a gold molecule. However, there is no such thing as molecular gold, its atomic orbitals just aren't configured correctly for that to be possible, which is why I pointed out that you mean "gold atoms," not "gold molecules."
"My dear, forces are between every molecule of every substance, from gold to water."
Again, gold is not a molecule. And yes, intermolecular forces are between every molecule and atom. There are four different types of intermolecular forces, with the only universal one being Van der Waals forces. It's the strength of these intermolecular forces that define the state of matter, as well as what those forces are up against.
"Ice has stronger intermolecular forces, due to which, ice looks like a solid to us. According to your methodology, ice can't make things wet. But see, when ice comes into contact with something that has a higher temperature than ice, ice makes a layer of liquid water upon its surface, and the same thing happens when you touch the surface of that thing and find water upon your skin, which we named wet."
Let me know if I messed up the interpretation of any part of this quote.
Ice does not have stronger intermolecular forces, its intermolecular forces just have less heat energy to fight against. And no, perfect ice cannot make something wet. But there's no such thing as perfect ice, because nothing has ever reached absolute zero. In reality, even the molecules in ice are bouncing off of each other, they're just doing it with little enough force that they are capable of keeping the lattice in tact. But when I touch ice and my hand gets wet, it's because my hand has melted the surface of the ice enough that it is now liquid water, and that liquid water is wet, which is why my hand got wet. My hand did not get wet because of the solid ice, it got wet because of the liquid water the solid ice melted into.
Con's third objection isn't even really an objection, as he answers and resolves his own question.
"When gold gets melted and makes other things wet, can solid water make it too?"
No, solid water (ice) cannot make things wet, since it is solid. Melted liquid gold, on the other hand, can make things wet, because it is liquid.
"Can you say that gold is wet too? As you say water is wet."
Liquid gold is wet, and liquid water is wet. Solid gold is not wet, and solid water is also not wet. The rules in the description prevent you from exploiting the technicality in the title where I technically did not specify that I was talking about liquid water. But the obvious interpretation of that title is that I'm talking about liquid water, and everyone knows that.
I finally get what con is trying to say when he was explaining how water can make other things wet without being wet in and of itself. He's saying that if water lands on a surface, the presence of the layer of water on top of that thing defines the wetness. Is there a layer of water on top of a layer of water? Yes, there are trillions of them. Fundamentally, you could define each layer as a single molecule width, since that's what the water ultimately is.
Conclusion: Con has still not adequately addressed how water can be not wet and not dry, and his response to my second question still does not disqualify water from being wet.
Con
#10
My opponent Tickbeat , adequately blame me for my siege , upon his empire of reasonless fact , that water is wet
in the debate
water and wet is AnonYmous , water is AnonYmous or wet is AnonYmous in sense of understanding and humor 😊 for everyone
sometimes thesis is uncomplete without anti-thesis
so thesis and core points of my opponent , i need to clear for readers :
-------------------------------------------
thesis no. 1:
water makes things wet .... that's Y water is wet itself
Anti-thesis no. 1:
to make things wet and to being wet is diff
-----------------------------------------
thesis no. 2:
Wet and dry are opposites , Water is not dry, therefore it is wet
Anti-thesis no. 2:
Everything is't white or black or white and black
We consider things as we perceive them , may be world is't what we perceive it is
to feel something wet or dry , its about u not about truth , truth has no concern to ur feelings , weather u like it or not ,
u make ur own truth for urself . but
things r not true becoz u feel its true
------------------------------
thesis no. 3:
liquids r wet , not substances until they r liquid
Tickbeat said : " Liquid gold is wet, and liquid water is wet. Solid gold is not wet, and solid water is also not wet. "
I don't like to play foul , as my honorable opponent accept that piece of gold has molecules of gold too .. as group of atoms make a molecule , so i prefer to interpret statements of Tickbeat , in the way he allow me to interpret
According to his statements , one thing is obvious that he try to say that liquids r wet and solids r not wet ......
in short , he talk about states not substances itself
water , gold , steel isn't wet until they r in specific state of liquid , substances dons't matter but the only thing that matter is actually is the states according to my honorable opponent .
Anti-thesis no. 3:
neither or nor my opponent disagree with me but he's pov not align with his motion ( Water is wet ) anymore
now his adopted new motion liquid is wet
well but maybe we can only say that liquids make other things wet by making their laywer upon them but still not wet itself
as wet means covered or saturated with water or another liquid
water or liquids (like oils ) makes other things wet by making their layer upon the surface of other things , but that's not make themselves wet
-------------------------------------------------
MOst important and final one
thesis no. 4:
No, solid water (ice) cannot make things wet, since it is solid. Melted liquid gold, on the other hand, can make things wet, because it is liquid.
Anti-thesis no. 4:
My opponent say that when things become liquid from solid , then able to make things wet .
but here one thing its not substance which make things wet as its the temperature who make them able to make other things wet
for example :
solid gold can't make any thing wet , but when temperature make solid gold to liquid gold , then liquid gold able to make a rod of steel wet , its means that's not the liquid gold ,
its means the temperature is, who is responsible to make a gold into liquid by transfer from the solid rod to gold and then makes its laywer upon the surface of rod of steel to make rod of steel wet
synthesis
My dear opponent : " the moral of the story is temperature is wet "
according to ur words not the liquids nor the states or substances , which actually goes against ur every motion
Or in my words temperature is responsible to make things wet
as for example : solid ice can't makes things wet , but a rod of steel with high temperature mess with the solid water , the temperature of rod , melt the solid water and then make water able to make its laywer upon the surface of rod
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:
Pro wins because they consistently met the burden of proof: showing that water in its liquid state possesses the very property—wetness—it transfers to other surfaces. From the start, Pro pointed out that “wet” and “dry” are binary opposites, and since water is plainly not dry, it must be wet. When challenged, Pro reinforced this with the Merriam-Webster definition (“consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid”) and explained at the molecular level how water molecules coat each other and anything they touch. Con’s appeals to subjectivity, temperature, or analogies with gold and ice never undermined this core logic—they merely sidestepped it.
Throughout ten exchanges, Con failed to explain how a substance that makes things wet could itself lack wetness. Con’s philosophical detours about perception and temperature’s role in melting solids did nothing to rebut that liquid water inherently fits the definition of “wet.” By staying focused on clear definitions, scientific principles, and unchallenged logic—namely, that only liquids can be wet and water is always a liquid under normal conditions—Pro delivered an airtight case. In the face of Con’s confused redefinitions and red herrings, Pro’s arguments remained coherent, evidence-based, and directly on point. That is why Pro convincingly wins this debate.
Pro was the only one to provide any sort of source in the debate, and therefore wins the reliable source point.
Con was borderline illegible and it took a lot of effort to read and understand his arguments so Pro wins legibility easily.
Pro also wins conduct due to Con's dismissive and rude accusation of 'playing dumb' in argument #4.
Overall, it's a landslide victory for Pro.
Nobody seemed to notice that I accidentally contradicted myself when I said that Merriam Webster's definition of wet contradicted con's definition of wet (which came from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th edition), because Merriam Webster's allowed water to be wet, whereas con's did not. When in the very paragraph, I mentioned that water actually can be covered with water, as water molecules are covered with other water molecules, meaning that Merriam Webster's definition does not contradict con's definition, but in the opposite way that con intended.
Despite this, my point still stands, because the ultimate resolution is that both definitions agree that water is wet.
oke
Yes, actually, for all intents, water, at least as a liquid, is always wet, in spite of my anally-retentive citation that it takes 6 molecules for water to begin to be wet. The other side of that coin is that there are, in the "average" drop of water, 1.2 +E 21 [1.2 sextillion] molecules.
Pretty simple: Water is originally from earth’s rivers, or whatever, and since that is wet, no variable changed except filteration, it must be wet?
All you say is true, except when there are only 5 or fewer molecules of water - an impractical condition, I admit, but it is a factual limitation to wetness.
You seem to be referring to adhesion, which water does on itself. I think most molecules are polar, but in solids are found hooked together mechanically so they stay put. So polar water molecules attract to them and ultimately stick to them. This is exactly what water molecules do with each other, so water molecules adhere to each other. Meaning that defining wetness based on adhesion still qualifies water as wet. Although technically adhering to oneself is called cohesion, but it's still the exact same mechanism going on, it just goes by a different name.
So if you have a hydrophobic solid, water will not adhere to it, and therefore you may not consider the solid itself to be wet. But since the water molecules are adhering to each other, they are wet. So water is wet.
This debate so far ignores a curious science that ought to be well understood by anyone having taken high school chemistry - at leased when minors' education actually educated rather than dictated and manipulated. Water, H2O, is a molecule made of two combined gasses, both of which have the property of "dry." And, in fact, up to five water molecules grouped together are dry. When a sixth molecule is added to the 5, they are then wet, and any more molecules added to it become wet. Water can be frozen to a temperature that, if the temp is maintained, the ice is dry. Steam is dry unless there are embedded water drops in the steam.
However, not all liquid elements are wet on the condition that "wetness" makes other elements damp or soaked. Liquid gold, for example , and many other liquid metals, are not wet by the damp or soaked condition and do not dampen or soak other "dry" elements. Liquid water, for example, spilled on most surfaces [steel, aluminum, glazed tile, etc], do not dampen or soak those materials. When wiped away completely, the surface is dry. Wetness is a matter of surface tension of water. On a sheet of drywall, for example, it may be resistant to dampening for a short period, but longer term exposure will ultimately dampen or soak it.
Pro should have done a more complete job of defining "wet" because it is more, and less than he thinks.
Actually, water can fit the "covered with" description, because the border is drawn at individual water molecules, which are all covered with other water molecules, together behaving in a liquid state between each other.
Just because something cannot become wet doesn't mean it isn't wet. In fact, that argument states that it cannot become wet specifically because it was never formally dry, and then became wet, upholding my argument that water is not dry. Bringing us onto your baseless claim that "Just because wet is the antonym of dry doesn't mean water is 'wet' because it isn't dry." Sorry, but if wet is the antonym of dry, and water isn't dry, it is wet. That's just how opposites work.
How can it be neither wet nor dry? I already said that there is no case for the fantastical "third state" only ever proposed when arguing for water not being wet.
WATER IS NOT WET. I don't know what the con is smoking but it must be some good stuff, cuz even a three year old can make better arguments than him. I have made a seemingly better argument than Con.
By definition, wet means "something" covered or saturated with liquid. However, water itself is the liquid. It cannot be "covered" by another liquid. It is impossible. Water can only make things wet. But it cannot BECOME wet, physically. Pro has stated that Water isn't dry so it has to be wet because opposite of dry is wet. Ofcourse water isn't dry because liquids cannot be dry. However, it isn't so simple as said. Just because wet is the antonym of dry doesn't mean water is "wet" because it isn't dry. Pro's argument does not fit the actual definition of "wet". I believe that water is neither wet nor dry. It is the medium to make things "wet" but it is not wet itself.
Okay 😅
I think I had a stroke reading that.
Serious debate is all about definitions, but if you want something else here, then fine. I just dont see how is it possible to argue this with no agreed definition. Its about as technical as it gets.
Well I wasn't particularly going to put that much focus on the fine line definitions (mainstream definitions one could site actually contradict each other). I'm going to go about it a bit differently.
This depends completely on definition of "wet". If it is "covered with water", then its yes in some cases, no in other cases. Really, cant debate this without a definition.