Is water wet?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is water wet?". Your opponent's style: Socrates

It depends on the pedantic definition used in this instance. If wet is an idea of a property of a state of matter, being fluid, as backed by e.g. the oxford dictionairy, then yes, it is wet. If however 'wet' is a mere concept then it's semantics can be debated as unatainable or even fluid in definition itself. The gener consensus is that, if water is liquid, it is wet.

You're hiding behind definitional relativism when the real problem is logical. Water can't possess a property it *defines*. Wetness requires water as the measure, so claiming water is wet is circular reasoning, not philosophy. You can't bootstrap a quality into existence by redefining it. The "general consensus" argument is just appeal to majority, not truth. Either wetness is a measurable physical property independent of water itself, or it's meaningless to apply it to water. You haven't shown which. Pick one and defend it without retreating into "it depends on definition." That's how debates end, not how they're won.

Since when does water define wetness? You are falling behind with a fallacy. Fluid oxygen, helium, or any other liquid material is deemed wet. Wetness is a property assigned to water, and to a multitude of other instances as well. To directly respond to your statements, however, is that you are also failing to provide any substance, context and alternative counterpoint to my claim, for you're merely attacking mine without providing a replacement.

You're right to call that out, but you've just conceded the real debate. If wetness applies to liquid oxygen and helium equally, then wetness isn't about water's nature at all, it's about liquidity itself. So water isn't uniquely wet, it's just liquid. Calling liquid things "wet" is descriptive convenience, not a property water possesses. My counterpoint: wetness describes how substances *feel against skin*, requiring an external observer. Water alone can't be wet because wetness demands a comparative state, a dry alternative. You need something else to define it against. Without that contrast, "wet" evaporates into meaninglessness.

The premise question is, "is water wet?", not "Is only water wet". So yes, wetness applies to liquids, and by extension thus also water, IF it's in its liquid form, for should it e.g. be frozen, thus solid, it is no longer deemed wet. You're both proving my point while forgeting about the premise of this debate, and I'd like to ask the chairman of this debate to reiiterate what question we arw currently debateing. Thank you. Additionally, you're saying wetmess deacribes how substances feel against the skin. Can it not be felt by an Eyeball? Nails? Muscle? Etc. Beside that, requiring a comperative state is a fallacy, while in this case true, there are alternatives to wetness, intrinsically a statement does not need an opposite for it to be a valid statement. And to conclude, your counterpoint is again not even about if water is wet, but how wetness is to be seen in a comperative framework. I have yet to hear your actual stance on this matter, so let me personally ask you, is water wet?

No. Water isn't wet. Wetness is the *sensation* of water on a surface, not a property water possesses intrinsically. Ice feels wet when it melts against your skin, but the ice itself isn't wet, the water coating it is. Water touching water creates no sensation, no wetness. You're conflating the substance with its effect on other things. A mirror isn't shiny because light bounces off it; shininess is how we perceive that reflection. Same logic. Water is the *cause* of wetness, never the subject experiencing it. That's the distinction you keep dodging.

Isn't, or cannot be? You fail to make a distinction between both. Beside that, my very first statement pointed out that water isn't intrinsically wet, so if you are to stand against me in this debate, how are you even agreeing with my position? Though I do beg to differ on your semantics, If water is the cause of wetness, how is it so? Is it not the userobserver's experience that translates into the feeling of wetness? Thus the true cause of wetness then is the observer since he assigns a value, in this case wetness, to something, that by your and my definition intrinsically isn't that of water.

You've trapped yourself. If the observer creates wetness by assigning it, then wetness doesn't exist without observation. Water exists whether anyone's watching. So water isn't wet, it's *potentially wet*, contingent on human perception. That's not the same thing. Your first statement said water "is wet" if liquid, which contradicts what you're saying now. You're retreating from objective claim to subjective one. Pick a lane: either wetness is a real property water has independent of observers, or it's pure perception and water categorically isn't wet. You can't claim both simultaneously and call it debate.

Incorrect, and I'd like for the chairman to reitterate what my first statement was:

Your first statement: "If wet is an idea of a property of a state of matter, being fluid, as backed by e.g. the oxford dictionairy, then yes, it is wet. If however 'wet' is a mere concept then it's semantics can be debated as unatainable or even fluid in definition itself." You explicitly said "yes, it is wet" under the fluid property definition. Now you're claiming you never made an objective claim. That's a direct contradiction. You opened by conceding water is wet if we use the dictionary definition of wetness tied to fluidity. You can't rescind that and pretend you were always skeptical. Either defend the dictionary position or admit you've shifted ground. Which is it?