Mercury is a metal in liquid state , can we say Mercury is wet ?
if gold in liquid state make things wet like water in liquid state too
What's goin on with the rhythm of Tickbeat
haha , what u think is may not be right but i admire u for that
i don't think what u say , is exactly i think but may be 😊 , i don't wanna hurt u
but there's some objection my lord
Objection no.1 :
when i consider molecules of gold in my example ,
"According to Tickbeat beliefs, gold is liquid, too. As lower molecules of gold are covered by upper molecules of gold, and in a relationship with each other, and wet, too."
but my opponent consider my considerations inappropriate and
My opponent oppose and say : "First of all, it's actually gold atoms, not gold molecules"
but i prefer to clear one thing that ,
molecule : a group of atoms bonded together (group of atoms of gold make a molecules it makes a some piece of gold , which my example valid like ur )
so in my example molecules of gold and ur example of water looks exactly same , and r liquids according to ur methodology of liquid and of being wet state of liquids
Objection no.2 :
Tickbeat say : I
t (gold) is not liquid if the atoms are not existing in a liquid relationship with each other, so gold is only liquid if you have melted it into a liquid. Otherwise, it's not, and is therefore not wet.
i like to introduce some to u dear , IMF
Intermolecular forces, often abbreviated to IMF, Intermolecular forces are the attractions between molecules, which determine many of the physical properties of a substance and r responsible to hold molecules together
My dear forces r between every molecules of every substances from water to gold
if IM-Forces get weaken by external forces such as temperature , every substance changed its physical nature from solid to liquid or from liquid to gas
Ice have stronger Im forces due to which ice , looks like solid to us ....... may according to ur methodology Ice can't make things wet ..... but c when ice become in contact with thing that has high temperature than ice , ice make a layer of liquid water upon its surface and same thing happend , u touch surface of that thing and find water upon ur skin , which we named wet , what u named it 😊
Objection no.3 : (this objection is technical but if u find it hard then just read it once for general knowledge)
Tickbeat say :
gold is only liquid if you have melted it into a liquid. Otherwise, it's not, and is therefore not wet.
if gold get melt and then get in contact with something solid , can we consider that gold makes things wet too
ofcourse yeah , but to feel that is hard i guess
Most important objection
Objection no.4 :
Tickbeat say :
gold is only liquid if you have melted it into a liquid. Otherwise, it's not, and is therefore not wet.
when gold get melt and make other things wet , water in solid can make it too ?
as we can say gold and water makes things wet
can u say that gold is wet too ? as u say water is wet
haha nope my dear , but what u say
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
my dear opponent feel sad and say
You haven't explained ............. my question of "How can water make things wet if it is not in and of itself wet?"
Alright my dear i can describe by ur highness i can explain it again
wet = something that is covered or saturated with water or another liquid
when contact with some solid ( iron plate ) then , there's a laywer of water covered the surface of iron plate , exactly when u water get in contact with our skin , water makes its laywer upon ur skin , which all called wet for u , hence ur skin is wet becoz laywer water is upon it
its all about presence of water upon ur skin or something else which is solid
Actually, water can fit the "covered with" description, because the border is drawn at individual water molecules, which are all covered with other water molecules, together behaving in a liquid state between each other.
Just because something cannot become wet doesn't mean it isn't wet. In fact, that argument states that it cannot become wet specifically because it was never formally dry, and then became wet, upholding my argument that water is not dry. Bringing us onto your baseless claim that "Just because wet is the antonym of dry doesn't mean water is 'wet' because it isn't dry." Sorry, but if wet is the antonym of dry, and water isn't dry, it is wet. That's just how opposites work.
How can it be neither wet nor dry? I already said that there is no case for the fantastical "third state" only ever proposed when arguing for water not being wet.
WATER IS NOT WET. I don't know what the con is smoking but it must be some good stuff, cuz even a three year old can make better arguments than him. I have made a seemingly better argument than Con.
By definition, wet means "something" covered or saturated with liquid. However, water itself is the liquid. It cannot be "covered" by another liquid. It is impossible. Water can only make things wet. But it cannot BECOME wet, physically. Pro has stated that Water isn't dry so it has to be wet because opposite of dry is wet. Ofcourse water isn't dry because liquids cannot be dry. However, it isn't so simple as said. Just because wet is the antonym of dry doesn't mean water is "wet" because it isn't dry. Pro's argument does not fit the actual definition of "wet". I believe that water is neither wet nor dry. It is the medium to make things "wet" but it is not wet itself.
Okay 😅
I think I had a stroke reading that.
Serious debate is all about definitions, but if you want something else here, then fine. I just dont see how is it possible to argue this with no agreed definition. Its about as technical as it gets.
Well I wasn't particularly going to put that much focus on the fine line definitions (mainstream definitions one could site actually contradict each other). I'm going to go about it a bit differently.
This depends completely on definition of "wet". If it is "covered with water", then its yes in some cases, no in other cases. Really, cant debate this without a definition.