Instigator / Pro
0
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
Contender / Con
0
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.

-->
@jonrohith

It is such common sense that water is not dry that everyone treated the argument as if that were already assumed to be true. If it weren't, Con would have been able to provide a sufficient counterargument to the notion that water is not dry. Dry means free of liquid or moisture, and water is liquid, so it's not free of itself.

-->
@whiteflame

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

-->
@21Pilots

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

-->
@fauxlaw

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.

-->
@Tickbeat

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.*