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

Wet Grass is Evidence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/15/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,521 times Debate No: 77714
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (0)




Evidence is defined as: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

OR as: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The observable fact that the grass is wet is evidence that it rained last night.

Post in comments if you want to accept debate. Serious debaters only please.


Oh, why, this is an interesting argument you started. So here we go, wet grass isn't really evidence that it rained recently. It is evidence that it raining recently is a possibility. see, if the grass is wet, it could mean that someone simply hosed it on, or there is also a small possibility that everyone in a city hosed their entire yard for some reason. It isn't Solid evidence, but it's still a clue that obviously points to it raining recently (Only if everything is wet, as well).
Debate Round No. 1


Affixing words like "Solid", or "Concrete" in front of the word evidence doesn't change the meaning of evidence, those words are adjectives elaborating the magnitude by which the evidence supports a conclusion.

You said, "...but it's still a clue.."

Clue is defined as a piece of evidence or information used in the detection of a crime or solving of a mystery.[1]

A piece of evidence. Con says it is not evidence and then when trying to describe what it is, uses a synonym for evidence.

I did not say that wet grass was 100% conclusive, absolute proof, irrefutable fact that it rained.

I stated that wet grass is evidence that it rained. Just as it could be evidence for a mass watering. Discerning which explanation is the "truth" is a step of hypothesis comparison. A step that comes after the argument is presented as what the evidence implicates.

Con conflates the facts with the explanation. There can be many explanations for the same evidence.

That does not refute the resolution of this debate. That the factual observation that the grass is wet, is a truthful premise that supports a logical conclusion that it rained.

The only property the wet grass needs is that it correlates to raining. That wet grass is a likely trace of interactions when it rains.

Just like a smoking gun is evidence a bullet was fired.



Now keep in mind that i may misuse words because of laziness or use slang. So yes, Wet grass is technically evidence that it is likely that it rained.
Debate Round No. 2


Then you concede, "Wet grass is evidence it rained".


No, wet grass is evidence that it MOST LIKELY rained. see, there are many other possibilities of why there is wet grass on a large area. Maybe a tsunami hit recently? Maybe a massive flooding that lasted days finally went away and all the grass is wet? Yes, it can point to it raining recently, but there are other possibilities. consider everything. But if you had to take a chance, then, yes, wet grass is evidence, although you cannot conclude that it rained for sure, you cannot be 100% sure about it just because of the wet grass.
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Discipulus_Didicit 3 years ago

I win.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Con conceded in round two. Whoever votes on this should vote Pro.
Posted by Enji 3 years ago
Pro should have done a better job defining "evidence" as he intended to use it in this debate. The definition "proof" is very different from "that which tends to prove or disprove", "grounds for belief", and "the available body of facts indicating whether a proposition is true or valid". Con relies on the initial definition in his arguments correctly stating that wet grass is not proof that it rained last night; however he concedes that wet grass can indicate that it rained last night. Does this mean he concedes the debate? No. The framing of the debate means either definition can be used and Pro never argues that wet grass is proof that it rained last night. Neither party should win this debate.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
Yeah, it's a false dilemma.

A pass is required just as much as a touchdown in order for a touchdown pass to be the cause of the touchdown.

Liquid precipitant from clouds is required just as much as wet grass in order for rain to be the cause of the wet grass.
Posted by ZBestDebater 3 years ago
It's funny how you call me a fool, when you're the one that doesn't understand.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
Seems like this waste of time, just deflated your argument.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
No! Wrong!
I'm claiming that a touchdown occurred...per your "observational fact" that the grass is wet.

My observational fact is that a touchdown occurred.
The cause is not evidenced by the touchdown as there are many causes.

If I were claiming a touchdown pass occurred, a touchdown WOULD NOT BE EVIDENCE...The quarterback completing a pass past the touchdown line is the evidence, not the touchdown itself.

Yes, a touchdown pass requires a touchdown, like wet grass requires liquid.
Touchdowns are caused by many things, and so is wet grass.

Answer my question as I stated it to save yourself logically!

Is a touchdown--just a touchdown--evidence of a touchdown pass?
Posted by ZBestDebater 3 years ago
Look, Mhykiel, you are a Christian. so i will ask you this, if there is Cosmic Background Radiation, then does this prove for 100% that the big bang happened? This is the same logic you are following. Wet grass can be a result of anything, but most likely it was rain.
Posted by Mhykiel 3 years ago
If you are claiming a touchdown pass occurred how would you support your assertion?

Waste of time with you.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago

Is a touchdown evidence of a touchdown pass?

Seriously answer this question!

If you answer yes to this, you demonstrate YOUR lack of logic.

A touchdown pass is not the only cause of a touchdown, therefore a touchdown is not evidence of a touchdown pass.

Please answer this.
No votes have been placed for this debate.