The Instigator
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Is water wet?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
wolfman4711
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 3/20/2013 Category: Science Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 1,937 times Debate No: 31492
Debate Rounds (3)

 Con Water can't be wet. Think about it. An object in the water... I'd say that that object is more wet than the water in fact if say water isn't wet at all... It causes things to be wet. I say that wet is a measurement of how much something is covered with water. Now you might say well water is already wet... But really it's covered in itself ... Ergo there's no comparison(0).Report this Argument Pro Then what makes the water wet? The definition of wet is soaked with water. So the definition itself proves this. It's that simple, I could do more but I got some other debates to attend to. Bye.Report this Argument Con So you forfeit?Report this Argument Pro umm.. no not at all. The definition itself sates that the verb wet means soaked with water. So how could anything be wet without water, when the definition states something must have water on it to be "wet"Report this Argument Con I'm saying is water wet? No . You're saying that water is wet in itself .... Nanana wetness is a measurement ... A change. A rug soaked in water is wet, a regular rug does not have water on it. Water on the other hand was already with other water...(0) change /no measurementReport this Argument Pro That implies the fact that water is indeed "wet". For something to be wet the object must make contact with water because water is wet. My opponents argument is weird and somewhat bizarre, he has failed to show the burden of proof and has confused me quite a bit. Plzz vote pro!Report this Argument
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by sweetbreeze 4 years ago
I don't get it. How can water not be wet? I mean, if it causes things to be wet, then shouldn't it be wet as well? I mean, how can it cause things to be wet if it isn't wet? That's just ridiculous.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
I've removed my vote. In fairness, my vote may have been biased due to a previous debate.
Posted by wolfman4711 4 years ago
I put a definition first!
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
I'm sure you'll get other opinions! To both of you, may the odds be ever in your favor.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
Con defined WET as "a MEASUREMENT of how much something is covered with water". By that definition, whether or not we can measure to what degree water is covered by water is central to the outcome. I pointed out two counters to his argument, but ultimately I must vote based on what occured in the debate and not how I would personally have rebutted them.
Posted by wolfman4711 4 years ago
Likes peace water is what makes thing wet. The debate was if water is wet not if u can measure water.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.