Water is wet

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.