Water Isn't Wet

Argument: Water isn't wet because the term "wet" only describes the surface of something if/when it comes into contact with water (or another liquid).

Counter-Argument: Not every definition of the term "wet" supports this argument, which is not a scientific argument in the first place. According to chemistry, water is wet.

Arguers' Fault: Semantics and self-selected definitions.

[Ram-lrud]

"Daddy, why is water wet?"
"STRONG TETRAHEDRON HYDROGEN BONDING"
**Kid begins to cry**

[justanedit]

I started to forget that this was a proper debate people were having.

[Ladondorf]

This is the most important Counter Argument of your career.

[socraturtles]

Makes sense you'd make this video given that half the comments of your other video were about you saying water was wet.

[joeprado]

I would argue that semantics are perfectly suitable for this argument because the nature of water is the foundation of the argument while the word “wet” is really what’s being argued.

[Wolfeur]

"In a liquid form or state"
So, is molten metal wet?

[RictusHolloweye]

I enjoy the way this channel discusses the theoretical, the important and the trivial with equal gravitas.

[frocco]

Screw abortion and gun control,

THIS is the debate we should all be having!

[WillowLemmons]

"Water is water"
-Mr.incredible

[Mampfax]

Well, that was pointless...

Chemist here: Strong tetrahedral hydrogen bonds don't explain why water is wet, just why it behaves the way it does

[Sluppie]

But... fire does burn. It doesn't get burnt, but it burns.

[joeyverliesharen]

"is water wet" is a question of linguistics, not science.

Science describes water: it has strong tetrahedral hydrogen bonds. What do we call that? Wet, apparently. Why do we call it that? Because linguists say we do.

What it boils down to, is that we call water 'wet', because we do. It's circle reasoning.

[JasonNaas]

Wading into the not-wet waters of controversy, I see...

[Hawkeyeblock]

No, you have misrepresented my position. I believe that water isn’t wet, because it helps boost my self-esteem to correct people who say water is wet.

[hubblebublumbubwub]

I love how most of the comments are arguing against this.

[Kayakasaurus]

It's incorrect when people use it as an example of something obvious, because it's simply not obvious. In contrast If you say the pope is catholic that makes sense.

[airiquelmeleroy]

Ok so, *boring* answer incoming.
On a molecular level, each "portion" of a body of water, is "wet" from any other molecules of water its blunded to in its edges, and all the edges of water are bounded to interior parts of it. If water was NOT wet, then water would flow in a flat surface becoming *extremely* flat, however due to surface tension it can make a blob, and be thicker despite having more room to flaten out. Therefore, its bounded to itself, and is then wet. Taking water out from a pool with a bucket, makes the bucket wet, and the water of the pool dryer. (As well as some inches from the edge of rhe pool)
In simpler terms: the reason water can "WET" stuff, its cause it adheres and saturates other stuff. And the reason why water is such a complex and vital part of all livibg things, is cause it can adhere and saturate itself, along with other chemicals. Therefore: Water CAN be wet, unless its a singular molecule of H20, or is in vapor form and each molecule drifts separately.

[IsomerMashups]

How is this a question of science and not linguistics? We're talking about whether water fits a certain definition, not whether it has a certain property.

[PotooPuppet]

Would one water molecule be considered dry?

[newsflashasshole]

Now we are talking about the important stuff