Instigator / Pro
7
1514
rating
7
debates
64.29%
won
Topic
#5437
All Water is Wet
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Hurried4675
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
6
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Description
PRO's claim: "All water is wet."
CON's claim: "No water is wet" or "Some water is not wet."
Both parties will have the burden of proof.
Round 1
Thank you Mall for the dialogue.
Throughout the debate PRO will take note of every agreed upon proposition as another postulate. PRO will also forfeit if CON is able to demonstrate unsound logic and that either no water is wet or some water is not wet. Every definition given PRO is receptive to change, however, the given postulates PRO is quite confident in deeming true.
Chapter 1 Round One Argument
1.1 Definitions
- A layer is a (usually) horizontal deposit; a stratum.
- An object is a thing that has physical existence but is not alive.
- An object, etc.: covered or impregnated with liquid, usually (but not always) water is wet.
- Something overlaid (with) or enclosed (within something) is covered.
- Water is a substance (of molecular formula H2O) found at room temperature and pressure as a clear liquid; it is present naturally as rain, and found in rivers, lakes and seas; its solid form is ice and its gaseous form is steam.
1.2 Postulates
1. All water is a thing that has physical existence but is not alive.
2. Every object is an object that has spatially distinct sections of itself.
Explanation. To illustrate, a building has a top section and a lower section of itself. This is applicable to everything; a human has a spatially distinct section of itself - like - their arm, face, leg, and so on.
3. Every object that has spatially differentiated sections of itself is a thing that has different parallel horizontal sections of itself.
Explanation. Similarly as before, this is just a specification that everything is distinct sections that are, essentially, layers. For example: a human is a person who has a top, middle, and lower section of them as an entirety.
4. Everything that has a top layer is a thing that has an overlay.
5. Everything that has layers is a thing that has a top layer.
1.3 Propositions 1-8
Proposition 1.1. ALL WATER IS AN OBJECT.
Proof. Everything that has physical existence but is not alive is an object [Def. 1.2], moreover, all water is a thing that has physical existence but is not alive [Postulate 1.1]; therefore, all water is an object.
Proposition 1.2. EVERY OBJECT IS A THING THAT HAS DIFFERENT PARALLEL HORIZONTAL SECTIONS OF ITSELF.
Proof. Every object that has spatially distinct sections of itself is a thing that has different parallel horizontal sections of itself [Postulate 1.3], moreover, every object is an object that has spatially distinct sections of itself [Postulate 1.2]; therefore, every object is a thing that has different parallel horizontal sections of itself.
Proposition 1.3. EVERY OBJECT IS A THING THAT HAS LAYERS.
Proof. Everything that has different parallel horizontal sections of itself is a thing that has layers [Def 1.1], moreover, every object is a thing that has different parallel horizontal sections of itself [1.2]; therefore, every object is a thing that has layers.
Proposition 1.4. ALL WATER IS A THING THAT HAS LAYERS.
Proof. Every object is a thing that has layers [1.3], moreover, all water is an object [1.1]; therefore, all water is a thing that has layers.
Proposition 1.5. EVERYTHING THAT HAS A TOP LAYER IS A THING THAT HAS A COVERING.
Proof. Everything that has an overlay is a thing that has a covering [Def. 1.4], moreover, everything that has a top layer is a thing that has an overlay [Postulate 1.4]; therefore, everything that has a top layer is a thing that has a covering.
Proposition 1.6 ALL WATER IS A THING THAT HAS A TOP LAYER.
Proof. Everything that has layers is a thing that has a top layer [Postulate 1.5], moreover, all water is a thing that has layers [1.4]; therefore, all water is a thing that has a top layer.
Proposition 1.7. ALL WATER IS A THING THAT HAS A COVERING.
Proof. Everything that has a top layer is a thing that has a covering [1.6], moreover, all water is a thing that has a top layer [1.4]; therefore, all water is a thing that has a covering.
Proposition 1.8. ALL WATER IS WET.
Proof. Everything that has a liquid covering is wet [Def. 1.3], moreover, all water is a thing that has a liquid covering [1.7] [1.2] [Def. 1.5]; therefore, all water is wet.
Remark. It might seem weird to include “liquid” in “all water is a thing that has a liquid covering” since everything else seemed to be a direct quote. However, it has been established that all water is a thing that has a covering [1.7], which is made out of water [1.2], which is a liquid itself [Def. 1.5]; it’s easily intuited that all water is a thing that has a liquid covering.
____________________
(1) layer - Wiktionary, the free dictionary. (n.d.). Wiktionary. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/layer
(2) object - Wiktionary, the free dictionary. (n.d.). Wiktionary. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/object
(3) wet - Wiktionary, the free dictionary. (n.d.). Wiktionary. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wet#Adjective
(4) covered - Wiktionary, the free dictionary. (n.d.). Wiktionary. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/covered
(5) water - Wiktionary, the free dictionary. (n.d.). Wiktionary. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/water#Noun
Some water is not wet. According to the following, I demonstrate unsound logic by way of one or the other.
"PRO will also forfeit if CON is able to demonstrate unsound logic and that either no water is wet or some water is not wet. "
Before I demonstrate the unsound logic, let us look at what it is first.
Upon a google engine search of unsound: not based on sound evidence or reasoning and therefore unreliable or unacceptable.
A synonym google has listed is "illogical". Somewhat of circular definition. When searching the definition for sound, one synonym is logical. Also one of the words in the definition has a synonymous meaning with logic.
So what is unsound overall is illogical.
So unsound logic is illogical logic.
Of course I just presented indirectly what logic is. It is sound.
So to expound upon that with another search from the google engine for logic:
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
That word "reasoning" keeps resurfacing with all these acuity terms.
Now validity has to do with what is correct, factual, true, realistic . Which realistic is again tied to the definition of sense tied to what is sound which is having a sane realistic attitude.
Can I demonstrate that some water being wet is illogical(not factual)?
Now what is wet?
I believe the opposing side mentioned, a liquid covering.
To add to that , it is something to at least some degree that has moisture.
Can I demonstrate that it is illogical (not factual) that some water is not wet?
Yes. Some water not being wet is not factual because some water that appears dry like ice may feel dry until put in a environment until slight moisture on the outer layer causes a slippery touch.
So even "dry" ice cubes that are also made of water have a characteristic of wetness.
The "opposing" side has taken the position that all water in some way shape and form is wet.
So the "opposing" side agrees with me that some water being not wet is illogical and can be or has been demonstrated.
Likewise with all water being not wet. That would also be illogical by the indirect explanations from the opposing side and what can be or has been observed if you'd come into contact with any ice water, liquid water which is nominally water and the air.
The air is a partial element in water which carries moisture and all wetness is a degree of moisture.
Does the pro side forfeit?
Round 2
CHAPTER 2 Round Two Argument
2.1 Postulates
- Some water is ice.
- Some ice is not wet.
2.2 Rebuttal
Firstly, soundness refers to both the validity of an argument and truth of premises. The former is in regards to if the premises were true then the conclusion is true. The latter is in regards to if the premises are true outright. Validity does not refer to the idea of if a proposition is true. However, this is a minor point.
Secondly, CON will technically forfeit - as - the debate of "if water is wet" is so culturally known to actually be a dialogue on "if liquid water is wet." This is true to the point that "liquid" is dropped. The forfeiture here is merely a technical and pedantic one, as, the actual meaning of the topic on this debate should be obvious by how iconic the dialogue around this topic perpetuates. The point that there are other forms of water that does not have to be necessarily wet is uncontroversial.
So, yes:
CON technically and in a pedantic sense forfeits. As that seems to be fair.
"PRO will also forfeit if CON is able to demonstrate unsound logic "
Question to the pro side, have I demonstrated unsound logic?
In regards to the following :
" either no water is wet or some water is not wet. "
I want the pro side to catch this. The pro side apparently is witnessing the agreement at the cost of the pro side forfeiting.
Question to the pro side, have I demonstrated unsound logic or the illogical (unsound) reasons of how only some water is wet and or no water is wet?
Please for the sake of simplicity and a slam dunk, answer with a yes.
Round 3
Never denied the such as the forfeiture has been given, PRO just prefaced it with it being technical and pedantic.
Please answer these questions with yes or no:
Question to the pro side, have I demonstrated unsound logic?
Question to the pro side, have I demonstrated unsound logic or the illogical (unsound) reasons of how only some water is wet and or no water is wet?
Round 4
Yes, pedantically and technically.
Yes, pedantically and technically.
The forfeiture has already been given, it just been rightly prefaced with it being technical and pedantic.
Forfeited
Round 5
It says "forfeit." Does that mean CON forfeited? 🤔
*TRY TO NOT GIVE A REASON WHY THE FORFEIT DOES NOT COUNT THAT IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO PRO's POSITION* (IMPOSSIBLE)
"Please answer these questions with yes or no:
Question to the pro side, have I demonstrated unsound logic?
Question to the pro side, have I demonstrated unsound logic or the illogical (unsound) reasons of how only some water is wet and or no water is wet?"
The opposing side answers:
"Yes......"
"Yes ...."
The rest wasn't necessary.
According to what the opposing side proposed:
"PRO will also forfeit if CON is able to demonstrate unsound logic "
The opposing side has answered yes, I have demonstrated this .
Just following the opposing side's own terms.
"*TRY TO NOT GIVE A REASON WHY THE FORFEIT DOES NOT COUNT THAT IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO PRO's POSITION* (IMPOSSIBLE)"
Where in the terms did it say if a round is forfeited by one side, that side forfeited the debate?
Now that was just a question. Not a statement which what would be giving a reason would form, a statement.
See in paying attention to words, you got to be careful as you can easily end up negating where you stand and where you thought you had solid ground.
One went astray.