the ultimate debate (PLEASE COMMENT I NEED THIS)


since this is about liquid water (sorry, it’s not about ice or water vapor), i would say yes because if water wasn’t wet, it wouldn’t be able to make other things wet, BUT my friends keep attacking me saying that water isn’t wet because then, we would be able to say that fire is burnt and weed is high and that’s just not right BUT honestly idk i feel alone in my standpoint so I NEED PEOPLE’S OPINIONS WHETHER OR NOT THEY AGREE OR DISAGREE you can’t say that it depends THANK YOU!


You must be logged in to comment
water isn't wet, because for something to be wet, there's this premise that the thing in question is dry in the first place. also one of the purposes of water is to wet a thing. water cannot wet itself because in other terms it's just simply the mix of similar things.

hope this helps!!
This screwed with my mind.
Now I have to read all the perspectives omfg--
water isnt wet because water is water
water is not wet because water can never be dry
if you dry water then there is no more water
if you touch water, water aint wet, you are wet
since water makes things wet becAUSE it is water not bc it is wet

lmk if u got an rebukes bc its a p fun argument
Water is wet because the object itself is always and forever will be wet. Even when it makes other objects wet, water itself will always be wet, past tense, current tense and future tense, water will always be "wet". Fire is NOT burnt because burnt is past tense for how fire affects other objects. "Burn" is a word that is conjugated based on tense that describes an object that is effected by fire, but "burn, burnt, etc." is NOT the word to describe fire itself. Weed is not "high" because again, high is a slang term to describe how weed effects those who smoke it. Weed as an object is not "high", rather those who are effected by the substance of weed are described a high. Just because one object has a word that describes both its current/forever state as well as how it effects other objects in comes in contact with, does not mean all objects must follow the same rule of being described by the same adjective given to describe the objects that the object is effected by. Linguistics/language do not follow the same hard rules as math and science in the sense that once a theory is proven in math or science, it is forever true until someone disproves it. Rather, language/linguistics are not based on physical reality and solid objects but rather based on feelings and how people decide to communicate with each other and which words and phrases they find pleasing to the ear and easy to say. This is why ALL languages are constantly evolving and slang is run through the mill at a rapid pace, because words are constantly being created and the meaning of words are constantly being renewed based on how people use them, and not always on their dictionary meaning because guess who created dictionaries? People. Different languages are spoken in different areas, but different maths/sciences are not. Because maths and science are based on physical reality and languages are based on culture, human feeling, and are a lot more fragile since they are created and determined on how to use them properly based on the collective society who uses them. Thus, your friends reasoning for water = wet so fire = burnt and weed = high is currently not correct because we as a society do not currently follow that linguistic rule. But who knows, maybe in 100 years, we will. Just look at the massive linguistic differences in the English language from now versus when Shakespeare was alive. Thank you for reading my essay lol.
This kinda gave me a brain fart but after thinking about it I think water can't be wet. Because the definition of wet is when something has liquid on it or absorbed into it but the liquid itself isn't described as wet. But wait.. Now that I think again people do say wet substance? Or am I remembering it wrong. But for the most part I think the first one is more accurate. Water can't be wet?
... And all of a sudden nothing in my life makes sense anymore LOL.

Jokes aside, I didn't even think of this until you brought it up. I agree with @KaihleeLo's comments.
I think it's merely psychological illusion since we were educated about water being wet since we were kids, an example would be when we were seeing bugs in the bathroom and when water ran down our legs most of the time we'd think the bug was crawling down our legs lmao

Idk what to say about the fire since it's basically just heated oxygen, but I wouldn't say weed is high since it is hallucinogenic, but when we consume them we do get high
Also if you say that because water is wet, it makes other things wet than it's fair to say that fire is burnt since it burns things.
But it really depends on how you read or perceive the question/statement. Water itself is NOT wet (that's like saying coffee itself, a liquid, is wet) but water IS wet IF if it comes into contact with an animated object or person.