The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

water is not a conductor of electricity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 479 times Debate No: 77854
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




challenge me if you dare


water: h2o



You are partially correct. In order for a material to carry a charge, two conditions must be met: there must be charged particles within the substance (ions, electrons), and particles must be free to move.

However, your resolution depends on the type of water we are discussing. Fresh water cannot conduct electricity, for the reasons stated above. Salt water can conduct electricity, as the sodium ions carry charges.
Debate Round No. 1


we are talking about pure h20, I specifically said h2o is a conductor of electricity for a reason. Salt water is salt water as opposed to water, meaning h2o.....

Water in and of itself has a neutral charge and thus doesn't have the neccesary positive charge to make it a conductor....

Here is my evidence:

"Water itself is not a conductor of electricity. In order for a substance to carry charge, two conditions must first be met:

  1. There must be charged particles within the substance (either ions or electrons) and
  2. These particles must be free to move It is true that in water (H2O) the discrete molecules are free to move, however, they carry no charge."






Salt water has the same base as fresh water. Its equation is NaCl +H2O. It is not a new substance, but simply an addition to an existing one. You did not specify clearly that we were focusing on pure water, you only stated H2O, thus leaving it open to interpretation. My previous arguments stand.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Pure water does conduct electricity, albeit poorly. That would have been a better argument to make.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Preston// Mod action: Removed<

1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro, Going into comments and posting: "You can't just fcking add stuff to the definition provided, the definition said h20 is a conductor of electricity NOT H2O +NaCl is a conductor of electricity, that's plain moronic" just because debate didnt go the way you wanted shows bad conduct. A PM would be more approptiate, And so you know, its a debate, definitions are debatable, but instead of debating you resorted to fowl language.

[*Reason for removal*] The conduct of individuals outside of the debate itself (in this case, in the comments) cannot be used as a means to award conduct to either debater for the same reason that forum posts can't be used for that purpose. The RFD is meant to be an assessment of the debate itself, and the debate alone.
Posted by TinyBudha 1 year ago
Hell no, you're trying to Hijack this debate and I'll call you out on it right here
Posted by DonaldTrump 1 year ago
This is entirely on you. If you want to insult me for doing whatever it is you're claiming I've done, PM me. Don't waste the comment section with this filth.
Posted by TinyBudha 1 year ago
You can't just fcking add stuff to the definition provided, the definition said h20 is a conductor of electricity NOT H2O +NaCl is a conductor of electricity, that's plain moronic
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Death23 1 year ago
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 defined water as "h2o" in round 1. Con asserts that salt water, a conductor, counts as an exception. Pro disputes this by arguing that salt water is not water as defined in round 1. Pro is correct. Pro's definition - "h20" - does not include any other substances than pure water. The notion that Pro's definition would include substances other than "h2o" is an unreasonable interpretation of Pro's definition. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Otherwise, Pro's argument from authority is unaddressed by Con.