This is Pro's definition. This definition is inclusive of substances which are "consisting of [...] liquid (such as water)". Clearly, water consists of a liquid. It follows that water is wet.
I would counter that using only one source
[1].
It clearly states: "If you're talking about something that is made up of other things, consist is your word. A molecule consists of atoms and their bonds. 'Consist' is often used in the past tense, so you're likely to hear it used in a sentence like "the game consisted of fourteen players and one stick." But you can use it in the present tense too. Grammar consists of many, many different rules, all of which are applied differently, depending on whether you're speaking or writing. The clubs all consist of singers, and singers only. If you play an instrument, look elsewhere, bud."
It is clear as day and twilight that something wet could hold liquid, contain liquid, but since the wet thing must be MADE OUT OF liquids and not being the liquid itself, water does not meet the requirement to be "wet". Humans are, in the most part, made out of the water, thus humans are wet technically. Water is not wet because it is not made out of other things. it is a pure substance at its definition: If you have CO2 mixed in H2O, it ain't water.
This is on top of that CON's other definitions, other than the one I have given, mentions nothing about "Consisting of liquids like water", and merely asserts that wet stuff holds and/or soaks in water.
Pro contends, baselessly, that "in order for something to be wet, liquids should be integrated within the subject" and also that "There needs to be a liquid and SOMETHING ELSE." However this position is contradicted by Pro's own definition for "wet", which is inclusive of substances that are "consisting of [...] liquid".
CON contends, baselessly, that "something can be consist of itself" and also that "Water consists of itself". However, these claims are being disproven by the very fact that "Consists of" is not eligible when it is claimed to consist of itself, because the very phrase is used when something is made up of other things, such as exams with students, papers and a teacher, and home with furniture and people. You can say both of them with the phrase, but not with water and itself.
CON has given zero sources and has merely tried to tear apart PRO's argument with a failed attempt in hand. My point remains rigid.
You guys are welcome to vote
bump
Y'all can vote
bump
bump
bump
I thought thiis will be a debate about science and properties of liquid, turned out be about language and literature. bleh!
"Pro's definition says liquid. Pro now wants to change the definition to advance a new argument. No."
The liquid is a state. North Korea is authoritarian, but North Korea is not composed of authoritarianism, it is composed of the people and the land.
that was quick
Likely opening case saving for later
Here are the first entries for "wet" from several reputable dictionaries:
Covered or saturated with water or another liquid.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/wet
consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wet
Covered or soaked with a liquid, such as water: a wet towel.
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=wet
Seems wet to me.