The Instigator
ConservativePolitico
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
xXCryptoXx
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Water Is Not Wet

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 11 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,458 times Debate No: 35882
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (11)

 

ConservativePolitico

Pro

Water is not wet.

First round for acceptance only!

3,000 character limit.

Good luck.

xXCryptoXx

Con

I accept.


Since my opponent didn't post a definition of "wet" I will do so.



This was the first definition so this will be the definition that is used:



Wet - consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (as water)


http://www.merriam-webster.com...




Debate Round No. 1
ConservativePolitico

Pro

My opponent's definition of wet is perfectly fine.

Wet is a condition, a state of being if you will, applied to an object. As the definition says it means to be soaked in liquid. If my shirt is covered in water, it is wet. If the street as rain water on it, it is wet. However, water cannot be wet. Water is the thing that makes things wet by covering it. The water itself is not wet as wet is the condition of being covered in water. Water cannot be covered in water as water is just water. Furthermore, water cannot be covered in any other liquid either as the liquids either separate or mix. But water itself cannot be wet.

Water is simply the H2O, three atoms that make up a molecule. It cannot itself be wet.

My opponent is clearly going to say that since water makes things wet it is wet but that is simply not true. Wetness only occurs when water encounters an object. It is a state of being applied to something else. If you just had water and no other objects in existence, water would not be wet as there would be nothing to be covered in said water and the water would just be perceived as water.

All of that being said, water is not wet.
xXCryptoXx

Con


Oh nuh, it would appear that my opponent made a fatal mistake.


Let’s look at the definition of “wet” one more time shall we?



Wet - consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (as water)


Consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (as water)


Consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked


Consisting of


Consisting of


Consisting of



Ehem.


You see, water consists of water, therefore water is wet.


My opponent really didn’t present his own arguments as much as he presented a possible contention to what he thought I was going to argue.


You see, at no point do I plan on arguing that water is wet because water can be applied to an object, which is what my opponent was contending to.


My argument is literally that because water consists of H20 (water), water is wet.


Water consists of a liquid (water), and according to the definition of wet, anything that consists of a liquid is wet.



I await my opponent’s response.


Good luck! ;D


Debate Round No. 2
ConservativePolitico

Pro

Wet is an adjective. [1] If something simply "consists of water" it is not "wet" it is merely water. Water does not consist of water, water merely is water.

consist - to be made up or composed (usually followed by of) This cake consists mainly of sugar, flour, andbutter. [2]

The cake does not consist of cake. The cake consists of something else. In the same way water does not consist of water. Water is water. Other things such as soda, water balloons, mixtures can consist of water however water itself is not consisting of itself.

That being said, since the definition of consist is not something used to define axioms (water is water therefore water consists of water is not the proper use of the word) water cannot consist of itself and therefore, does not fit the definition of wet because water cannot consist of itself. It is the wrong use of the word consist.

Again to reiterate. I consist of water, cells, tissue, organs etc. I DO NOT CONSIST OF HUMAN. I am human but do not consist of human. Water consists of hydrogen and oxygen but it does not consist of water. Therefore, water is not wet because it does not consist of water.

This debate is turning out to be the fun semantics spectacle I wanted it to be!

Back to you.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
xXCryptoXx

Con


Why Water is Wet:


Within the definition of wet is “to consist of a liquid”


This means if I can prove water consists of water I win the debate.


My opponent argues that water consists of Hydrogen and Oxygen, not water, and that water therefore does not consist of water.


Let’s look at this in a different context.



1. Water consists of Two Hydrogen and One Oxygen.


2. Two Hydrogen and One Oxygen is H20.


3. H20 is Water.


4. Water consists of H20.


5. Water consists of water.



This can only work with things where the contents of it always make the thing they are contained in when combined. For example, this doesn’t work for humans, because water, cells, tissue, organs etc. when combined will not always make a human, nor are they equal to a human in any way.



consist - to be made up or composed of.



Water is composed of H20, and H20 is water, therefore Water consists of Water.



“the definition of consist is not something used to define axioms (water is water therefore water consists of water is not the proper use of the word)”



Like I argued, it depends on said context you are putting it in.


The definition of consist can be used todefine an axion only if the things something consists of inherently is said thing.


Two Hydrogen and One Oxygen is H20, which in turn is inherently water.



It’s like math! Except with words! And I did the complex equation!



Thank you for instigating this debate, it was entertaining.


Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
this debate is hilarious!
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
This debate changed my life.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Yeah I wanted to do something fun and challenging. Honing these debate skills. The more I debate, the more I feel like I can convince anyone of anything ;)
Posted by airmax1227 3 years ago
airmax1227
It's interesting how often this resolution is debated. I don't think I've ever seen the pro win but CP did a good job with it. It's far easier for the con to use the definition of "in a liquid form or state"...as I did in this debate: http://www.debate.org...

...as it gives almost no wiggle room for semantics and arguments. Water is clearly in a liquid form or state. But even with the definition in this debate, Crpto manages to break down CP's arguments. CP makes a good case though as his "consisting" arguments are generally sound, but with the extent of the BOP, it's quite difficult for him to carry that given Cryptos final round, explaining that on a scientific level, water contains the elements which make up water, and that argument seems to be enough for me to conclude that water consists of water making it wet per the definition used. It might be interesting to see a debate entirely on the nature of that argument though.

Nonetheless this was a quick and fun read, and both debaters did a great job on it.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
*Cough* Conceited *cough*

Definitely CP :D
Posted by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Debates with me always are ;)
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
This debate was surprisingly fun for such a simple resolution.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Okay, time to get off my lazy arse and actually type up a response.
Posted by Fictional_Truths1 3 years ago
Fictional_Truths1
wow. Just... lol
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
ConservativePoliticoxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: To me, this debate came down to the whole "consists of" argument that Pro made. Essentially, something consists of the parts, not the final product. Con's circular reasoning in refuting this was ineffective.
Vote Placed by PatriotPerson 3 years ago
PatriotPerson
ConservativePoliticoxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Con delivered a humorous, agreeable, and correct argument. First 2 to him simply for agreement. Conduct to neither because both made a well enough case and behavior was both fine. Also, arguments go to neither because both contendors made strong enough points and arguments in my opinion. Sources to neither (Yes, I changed it) because they actually provided sources, but they were the same.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
ConservativePoliticoxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I was expecting this to be more trollish. At any rate, "I DO NOT CONSIST OF HUMAN" seems to me not to be bad grammar, but rather a grammatical device to show how badly Pro's analogy fits. I enjoyed both arguments, but ultimately found Con's more compelling because "consists of" is in the agreed upon definition, and so I don't really think there's any way out of that for Pro.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
ConservativePoliticoxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: When she said "I DO NOT CONSIST OF HUMAN," it summed up a lot of the grammar this debate was really about pretty well. True semantically con is right, yet we don't vote on just semantics, or even who is right, we look at the strengths of arguments presented, as measured by such things as presentation (an area pro came ahead on quite well). Pro took a long shot, and made a real case for it. Con did little more than an argument by assertion (even if a very true and valid one).
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
ConservativePoliticoxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed that while water itself is only molecules, and in no way can molecules be wet. Just because wetness consists of Water Molecules does not mean the water molecules are wet.
Vote Placed by ObiWan 3 years ago
ObiWan
ConservativePoliticoxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Water is not made up of H2O, water is H20, they're synonyms, therefore con was not able to prove that water consists of water, which was the main argument for why water is wet.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
ConservativePoliticoxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO allowed CON to take this debate by allowing him to define his way through it.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
ConservativePoliticoxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Actually I read the debate wrong, I may vote later.
Vote Placed by rross 3 years ago
rross
ConservativePoliticoxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed that water consists of water and is therefore wet according to the definition that Pro accepted.
Vote Placed by MisterDeku 3 years ago
MisterDeku
ConservativePoliticoxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's semantic argument was clever to begin with, but pro's analysis that consisting of something and being something are very different things. I didn't buy Con's circular rebuttal to this argument so I end up voting pro.