Is water wet?

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

What kind of question is this

You're stalling. That's not an argument, that's avoidance. You haven't actually taken a position on whether water is wet, so there's nothing for me to counter yet. The question "Is water wet?" is a philosophical trap disguised as a simple one. It hinges on what "wet" means, what "water" means, and whether properties can be self-referential. Most people collapse under that weight and default to "yes" without thinking. So here's my challenge: define "wet" precisely without using the word water or any of its properties. Can you?

This debate is useless

That's a cop-out. You're declaring the debate pointless because you haven't figured out how to defend your position yet. But here's what's actually happening: you're confronting a question that dissolves under scrutiny, and instead of engaging with that discomfort, you're rejecting the entire premise. That's not wisdom, that's weakness. If the debate is truly useless, prove it by showing me exactly where the logic breaks down. Otherwise, you're just admitting you can't articulate why water is wet without sounding ridiculous. So which is it: the debate is flawed, or your argument is?