1500
rating
17
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#6162
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
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Description
This is a debate about whether or not water is wet. I've debated this twice already, however the second time around, I had gained more insight on the topic and so I felt that I should debate it again. But my opponent was terrible both because his arguments were bad and because he was borderline incomprehensible, so I don't feel that I sufficiently challenged my new insights. Plus I'm killing two birds with one stone because it's the only way I could find to friend someone who hasn't done anything on the website yet.
Round 1
There are two main points that so far have not been directly addressed by advocates of water not being wet, they usually just dodge the question entirely and talk about something else. These two main points are:
1. Water is not dry, therefore it is wet. Wet and dry are opposites, meaning that when it is not at all one, it is the other. Water is definitively not dry, meaning that it is not at all one, therefore it is the other, which is wet. If water must not be dry, then it must be wet. To get around this, some propose the idea that water is a third state that is neither wet nor dry. However, this concept cannot in any way be shown to be real. There are no definitions for it, there's no logic behind it, there's no research for it, and so there is absolutely no case for its existence. This concept is only ever proposed when people are trying to argue that water is not wet, because the only other option is to say that water is dry, which definitively makes no sense. So they have to invent a new state without backing it up with anything just to say that water is not wet. I find that not at all convincing.
2. Some say that water makes things wet, but it is not in and of itself wet. But something cannot make something else wet without being wet in and of itself. If I touched a brick, my hand wouldn't get wet, because the brick is not wet; it is dry. But if I touched water, my hand would get wet, because water is wet; it is not dry. It doesn't make sense to say that if I touched water, my hand would get wet, because water is not wet. Or rather, if I touched water, my hand would get wet, even though water is not wet. There doesn't seem to be any way to make sense of water being capable of transferring the property of wetness onto things without being wet in and of itself.
Conclusion: These points must be directly addressed in order to have a case for water not being wet. Otherwise, these facts will remain as refutations to the idea that water is not wet.
Your arguments are, "Water must be wet because wet and dry are opposites, and water is not dry" and "Water is wet because in order to make things wet, it must be wet in it of itself". If I have strawmanned your points, please inform me.
Now I understand that typically both parties would give their evidence and arguments and then refute each other, however, since we are here to debate the claim that water is wet, I will go straight into refuting my opponents arguments.
Refutation 1: You claim that water must be wet because wet and dry are opposites, and water is not dry. This is a false dichotomy. Your statement assumes that wet and dry are binary, with no room for nuance. The adjective 'wet' is generally used to describe the effect of a liquid on a surface. Saying water is wet because it is not dry is similar to saying fire is burned because it is not not burned. It is a mischaracterization of the adjective. Just as fire causes things to burn but isn't described as 'burned', water causes wetness but isn't considered 'wet'. Water cannot be covered by water, because it is water. Think of it like a marble counter top in your house. Would you argue that there is marble on top of marble? No. There is no marble on top of marble, because those two properties are the same, marble. Once again, water is not covered with water because water is the substance in question.
Refutation 2: Your second claim is that water is wet because in order to make things wet, it must be wet in it of itself. This is a fallacy of composition. Think of hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is an extremely combustible element, and oxygen promotes and accelerates combustion, however, when you add the two you get water. Hydrogen and oxygen are not liquids, yet when they come together they create a liquid. This shows that just because something has one property does not mean it's source has that same property. Also think of oxygen. Oxygen oxidizes things, however, oxygen doesn't oxidize itself, because it is oxygen, the very thing that oxidizes things. Meaning water does not have to be wet because it wets things.
Conclusion: Water is not wet just because it is not dry. This is proven by the false dichotomy fallacy, which presents only two options when there are many more. Also, water cannot be wet just because it wets things. This is proven by the fallacy of composition, which assumes things that because something has one property means it's source must have that same property.
If my argument seems fallacious, please do let me know.
Round 2
You claim that water must be wet because wet and dry are opposites, and water is not dry. This is a false dichotomy. Your statement assumes that wet and dry are binary, with no room for nuance.
That's because they are binary. Wet and dry are opposites, that's a basic fact. The only nuance to that is something I actually did address, though it was rather subtle, which is that the opposites are a spectrum. You can be soaked, or wet, or moist, or damp, or dry. Those are levels to the wetness, meaning that the opposites of wet and dry are a spectrum. However, this does not negate my argument, not only because any item on this spectrum consists of wetness and/or dryness and not the proposed third state, but also because I did acknowledge that point by saying "When it is not at all one, it is the other." So this is saying that it is the other only when it is not one to any degree, because it is possible for it to be the other, and one, but to a lesser degree.
The adjective 'wet' is generally used to describe the effect of a liquid on a surface.
The way people generally use a word, and the actual meaning of the word, aren't quite the same thing. Sure, people never say "Aw man! My water got wet!" But there are two potential reasons for why that is the case. Either it's because water is not wet, and therefore it would be factually incorrect to say that your water got wet, or it's because even if water is wet, people obviously have no reason to colloquially talk about their water getting wet, since that particular fact never impacts their life in that way. Meaning that the adjective 'wet' can be generally used to describe the effect of a liquid on a surface, and water can still be wet.
Saying water is wet because it is not dry is similar to saying fire is burned because it is not not burned.
The reason I said that water is wet because it is not dry is because there is a strong enough case for water definitively not being dry that it has no adequate refutations, and thus can be accepted as fact. It therefore makes no sense to say that water is dry. And this is where the difference lies between water not being dry, and fire not being not burned. The false assumption is at the end of your quote, where you assume that it wouldn't make any sense to say that fire isn't burned, when this is not the case.
Some definitions define burn not by the heat, but by the damage the heat causes.[1][2] This would of course disqualify fire from being burned. Other definitions define burn according to being consumed as fuel.[3][4][5] And physically speaking, if I burn a log, the carbon atoms and hydrogen atoms within the carbon dioxide molecules and water molecules are the same atoms from the original log, so at first, it may appear that technically part of the fire is the log. But by completely rearranging the materials, they no longer meet the definition of a log, as the atoms are bonded to different atoms / molecules, and the state of matter is different, and there is a total lack of certain other materials. Therefore, it isn't accurate to say that the fire is part log. Therefore, the fire has not been consumed as fuel. Therefore, the fire is not burned, by either method of defining 'burn.'
So you see, it can very well be shown that fire is not burned, whereas it cannot be shown that water is dry. Therefore, saying that water is wet because it isn't dry is not akin to saying that fire is burned because it isn't not burned. In fact, it's the opposite of that, because in reality, fire is not burned because it isn't burned (Those sound like they mean the same thing, so I'm using italics to emphasize the concepts being referenced).
Water cannot be covered by water, because it is water. Think of it like a marble counter top in your house. Would you argue that there is marble on top of marble? No. There is no marble on top of marble, because those two properties are the same, marble. Once again, water is not covered with water because water is the substance in question.
Actually, water is covered by water, because the water molecules are covered with other water molecules, and a collection of water molecules existing in a liquid relationship with each other is covered by other collections of water molecules existing in a liquid relationship with each other.
Now, in the case of a solid, the molecules are actually interlocked with one another by hooking onto each other due to their geometry. There are also intermolecular forces, but those usually aren't strong enough to keep something solid at room temperature. Are the molecules that make up the marble on top of each other? Yes. So would I say that there is marble on top of marble? Yes, actually, I would, because there is marble on top of marble.
Therefore, water can still fit the definition of wet by being covered with water.
Think of hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is an extremely combustible element, and oxygen promotes and accelerates combustion, however, when you add the two you get water. Hydrogen and oxygen are not liquids, yet when they come together they create a liquid. This shows that just because something has one property does not mean its source has that same property.
Just molecular hydrogen is indeed combustible, until it forms covalent bonds with an oxygen atom. The oxygen atom becomes sp3 hybridized in order to house the two s orbitals from the two hydrogen atoms, one from each atom. What this means is that the hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atoms both changed form, and this is why they no longer possess the properties they once possessed. If you took out the exact oxygen atom from a water molecule and could magically keep its atomic orbital structure in the same configuration as it was when it had two covalent bonds between the hydrogen atoms, it would possess different properties compared to actual lone molecular oxygen. Therefore, the initial properties that the atoms once possessed do not make up the existing water molecule.
When water gets onto your hand, the water molecules do not change their form at all, so their properties remain the same.
Therefore, the comparison between the properties of the elements that make up a water molecule when they are lone, and the property of wetness getting transferred onto your hand, is not the same.
Conclusion: It is clear now that the reason the adjective 'wet' is generally used to describe the effect of a liquid on a surface is not because water actually isn't wet, but because there is no practical application to use that word in any other context other than that.
I understand the traditional sense of this website and how it works, however, I think this debate could be wrapped up fairly easily. Not because I can refute your arguments (you make excellent points), but because we just need to clarify definitions.
If wetness is described as water molecules covering a surface, then most things are wet. While we don't feel it, the molecules in the air mean just about everything we see, touch, and taste are technically wet if the amount of molecules doesn't matter.
Of course, I understand we are supposed to argue for 5 rounds or so, but as I am not passionate about this topic, I cannot offer much of a rebuttal against your arguments. I think you've offered some amazing points and if I was more knowledgable on the subject I would absolutely love to continue to converse with you, but I simply am not passionate enough about this topic to pour research into it. Thank you for you time.
Round 3
While we don't feel it, the molecules in the air mean just about everything we see, touch, and taste are technically wet if the amount of molecules doesn't matter.
As I mentioned earlier, wet and dry are a spectrum. Something can be soaked, or wet, or moist, or damp, or dry. So yes, technically everything that touches the air is wet to a very small degree, and thus, the wetness is very low on that spectrum. Slightly higher on the wetness spectrum is humidity, where if the air is more wet than it usually is, it is considered rather humid, and you'll notice the difference.
I simply am not passionate enough about this topic to pour research into it.
You can start your own debate any time you want, just go to debates > new debate, input all of the settings, and click publish. So if you want to debate about something that you are passionate about, simply start a new debate about that topic.
Conclusion: It appears that this debate has already reached its end, as con isn't passionate enough about this topic to continue. So if you have nothing to say in response, then to save time, just publish your argument as "placeholder" as soon as you get the chance, since otherwise each argument would take an entire week to pass by.
Forfeited
Round 4
Ra morcolucismikmiktuktuk&three ak God semitusi morcolucismikmiktuktuk&three Alfra brfghi morcolucismikmiktuktuk&three &*. Morcolucismikmiktuktuk&three &* yukper trij brfghi qwrtypsdfghjklzxcvbnm, brfghi quektai yukper חoחtai morcolucismikmiktuktuk&three ak-ak p&/* morcolucismikmiktuktuk&three utrech, brfghi morcolucismikmiktuktuk&three fou p&/* God yukper kitov חoחtai morcolucismikmiktuktuk&three ak-ak חoחtai morcolucismikmiktuktuk&three reaofsunshineexceptitsmadeoutofegyptianfireantssowhenyoueatitittasteslikeaspeaker.
That is Genesis 1:1-2 in an atrocious language a friend and I founded called jddhj*wuhkndkcjbhdbh+/&njghsjhgndcjnyg (and yes I know how to pronounce all of this). Though all of these words above were invented by me, the friend barely did anything to contribute.
Rizz
Round 5
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Eskendfskdkkdd
Reason:
I consider this a 2-round debate. Both debaters started off well. The Pro gave detailed arguments like "water is not dry, so it must be wet" and "water makes other things wet, so it is wet." But in Round 1, the Con responded effectively by saying, “Fire makes things burn, but fire itself isn’t burned.”
This debate mainly focused on popular beliefs rather than strong factual evidence. Although the Pro included some sources, they were mostly dictionary definitions and he didn’t explain why he chose them. Also, the Pro failed to properly explain why water is not dry — he just kept repeating the same idea without solid reasoning or scientific backing. In Round 2, the Pro repeated his earlier points, and the Con almost forfeited without completing his arguments.
Overall, the debate felt incomplete. The Con’s argument was simple and catchy, but both sides lacked depth and didn't build their cases properly. Since the debate was unfinished and mostly based on opinions or common myths, I’m voting for a tie. In terms of conduct and legibility, it's also a tie. I can't fully accept sources that are just dictionary definitions without proper explanation.
I vote as tie
If you actually read the debate, you would know. But I'll tell you here anyway. Con realized that he just wasn't passionate enough about this topic to put that much effort into his arguments, and thus he conceded the win to me. But since there were still more rounds to be finished, we have to put in filler text so the time would pass by faster, so we just started putting random unrelated pieces of text in the debate. Thus, the judges should focus on the coherent argument portion of the debate, and if you read all of them, then it'll be very clear when the debate ends.
What the hell happened in this debate
Apologies for that, I haven't seemed to remember the whole definitions thing when I make my arguments, but I'll do that in the future.
In your debate last month, #6079, on this subject, and on which I did not vote, in Comments I suggested "Pro should have done a more complete job of defining "wet" because it is more, and less than he thinks." You did not do it again in this debate. Why don't you spend a little more effort n your Description to define "wet" or "wetness" because without definition, you just talk around the subject. It is, after all, the keyword of your Resolution. Why not define and stop assuming everyone is on your same page? Liquid does not necessarily mean wet, and I've already given you examples of that: liquid metals: gold for example .
By the way, here is Genesis 1:1-2 in my much more sensible language, Remace:
Šlô tě ôlozû Yowâ blř əwôgř ûp blř urî. Ûp blř urî bwî jî gwaťe ûp pî, ûp wûťe râ blř yu, ûp wûzû křzû crě Yowâ blř fwřgř.
Between water not being dry, and fire being not burned.*