I actually asked my science teacher about this once. He said that technically, a single molecule of water isn’t wet. but two molecules of water make each other wet. Therefore, MOST water is wet.
Objection! Two molecules make each other wet, thats true, but that only prooves that the structure of water is wet, humans are 80% water and only our inside is wet and not our outside. Therefore only our structure is wet and not our outside, water only wets things, if you pour water on water you just increase the amount of water. The defense claims water ISN'T wet.
@@tubbytoes3005 nah, sometimes he gulps the coffee down for a few seconds for dramatic effect, putting the mug at an angle that would drain it. The amount of coffee is definitely limited, as when he tosses the it at someone it drains and we can see the bottom. Another mug mysteriously slides into his opened palm afterwards. I think we can safely conclude that the mug is magical in nature, but also that we need a spinoff game in which we follow Godots' life in prison in order to find out the nature of the phenomenon
@@cloaking111 thats really what I said. a cup of coffee slides towards him each time its offscreen or when its broken. the cup could just be slided over by an assistant.
Except for the revised claim that " The surface of the water isn't wet" since the water on the surface is still in contact with other water molecules and therefore wet. The fact that this fallacy wasn't called out but instead worked around seems like an oversight.
Hot is a subjective term. It's not really the fire making people feel hot, its our nerve cells reaction to the heat creating what we feel as hot. So fire can't be hot unless someone is there to feel it
@@yesiam7120 OBJECTION, there is no such thing as "cold fire". The lowest recorded is 200 to 300° which is still hot, and according to scientists, the body works best within a narrow range of body temperature- 36C to 37.5C
In order for something to be considered wet, then it must also equally apply to the opposite scenario that it can be considered dry. Is there ever a case where water is dry? No, therefore, water isn't wet. Also, don't bother mentioning "dry water" since that's just a phrase describing something unrelated to actual water molecules.
@DB - 09SA 956706 Port Credit SS Although he burned Phoenix by throwing coffee at him? Lmao. I think that would at the very least revoke his coffee privileges In court. Furthermore, he could lose his job as well. However, thats only if the judge has an average IQ and not thirty points below average. Lol.
Here’s my issue with the whole water is wet argument. Many that side with water is wet use that a single water molecule touching another single water molecule makes the water wet. But wetness doesn’t just talk about water molecules and applies to literally ANY liquid substance. (Most have water molecules in them) but if you were to put your hand in melted iron (ignoring that your hand is probably burning off if you actually did this) when you took your hand out it would be considered wet despite no water being present. So just water having the ability to make something wet isn’t considering actual rules of chemistry and a bunch of other complicated boogaloo. Wetness is defined as “the ability of a liquid to adhere to the surface of a solid, so when we say that something is wet, we mean that the liquid is sticking to the surface of a material.” Water doesn’t adhere to itself because that’s a whole different definition entirely called cohesiveness. Which is literally just liquid preferring to stick with liquid of the same substance. “Cohesive forces are attractive forces within the liquid that cause the molecules in the liquid to prefer to stick together.” What makes something wet is a ratio balance between cohesiveness and adhesion. If the adhesion is greater than the cohesiveness then it becomes wet. But if cohesiveness is greater than adhesion then it’s actually dry. Which water has EXTREMELY strong cohesiveness so water is actually dry and not wet. scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=6097
How the hell did you go from "Wetness is defined as “the ability of a liquid to adhere to the surface of a solid, " and then arrive at "Water doesn’t adhere to itself, thus it's not wet?" By the first definition you just gave, water has wetness because it's a liquid that adheres to a surface...and then you just completely forgot that water is a liquid that sticks to things in the next sentence and called it dry.
@@myau9912, it adheres to other things, but what determines if a liquid is dry or wet is the ratio between adhesion and cohesion. If it is more adhesive than it is cohesive then it would be wet. If it is more cohesive than adhesive it is not wet. Water is much much more cohesive than it is adhesive, if you've ever watched water roll down a window you'd notice that while yes it is sticking to the window it is following the same path as the water droplet before it that had left some water in its trail. Sometimes it breaks off and then hits a dry spot on the window before getting back on the "water trail" but this is because the droplet gets to heavy and loses its tension. (Something that is an entirely different subject)
@@unstoppable6249 Good thing wetness has different levels then. Though I dont know why the fuck Im wasting time arguing with someone who says water is dry.
OBJECTION! Since the surface molecules are touching water... *points finger* IT IS STILL WET! The example given by the defense is faulty because it ignores the fact that the inner molecules of the mug and the outer molecules of the mug are different. So, while only certain sides of the mug are wet, the entire molecules of those surfaces are also wet, just like the surface water molecules! Edit: After a long debate with BeelzebubFailure, we have come to an agreement. The following is a conclusion that we have both agreed upon, and that I feel sums up the debate well: Water, by itself and as a single molecule, is not intrinsically wet. It has no property that can make itself wet. However, water in the presence of other water molecules, given there is enough to consider some molecules as covered, those covered molecules become wet.
HOLD IT! The definition given by the prosecution asserts that to be considered "wet" the object has to be "covered or saturated with water or another liquid". Since the water molecules are in contact with air they cannot be fully covered in other water molecules. True the inside of the mug is wet, but that doesn't mean that the mug in its entirety is wet!
@@Dctr-mg8km HOLD IT! If the mug was underwater, there would be little to no air to separate the mug from the water, and ALL of the mug would be wet. Therefore, the water from the inside of the mug touches the water from the outside of the mug, making it W E T.
Well, if you say that the existence of a gap means they are not touching, then nothing is, therefore nothing can be wet. However, it should be obvious that what is commonly referred to as touching is, in fact, electron repulsion. Therefore, water molecules were indeed touching each other.
@@sorensharp4377 agreed. Most people just don't know about the history function and the citations. Being able to see the past versions of a Wikipedia article and the citations makes my mind at rest since it would be significantly harder for a random editor to get away with a lie. I've only encountered one mistake (not lie) that I knew myself was wrong. It was a simple error where the time period in part of the article implied a different end point of said time then what was later stated in the article. And guess what. I just edited the time period to be correct (the point in time was correct).
*_OBJECTION!_* I’m afraid all the water molecules touching is _scientifically impossible._ Touch, as we understand it, is when the boundaries of two objects are in the same location... however, molecules _don’t have boundaries!_
@Hello World Molecules do not connect entirely. Things called Electrons repel the two, like anything, while we still feel the touch. And if we can be considered set through the repelling, then water can still be wet going by the same definition.
It was truly remarkable how he calmly argued that the outside of the cup was indeed not wet as the coffee had not touched that part, whereas the rest of us would’ve been too dumbfounded by the accusation to offer a rebuttal.
I think something wet is something that could be dry. Clothes can be wet or dry. Water can't be dry. Therefore, to call it wet doesn't make sense, since it won't ever be dry.
@@neg1346 that silica water isn’t “dry water” it the most true/literal definition. They only call it that because it’s water and it appears to be dry. But underneath every silica coating the droplet, the liquid water is still there.
Btw, this statement, if you’re smart, debunks the entire “water is wet” argument. It’s so dumb. If i hire somebody, I should ask them if water is wet, and if they say yes then I know they have no critical thinking skills and I won’t hire them lol.
This comment started out as a random comment, but I actually ended up coming up with a solid conclusion. So, if you want to read the TL;DR, it's there at the end. I suggest those who do read through my bullshit to read the TL;DR too, since I made one minor tweak to my conclusion. I'm very confident in my conclusion. I came here with the opinion that water isn't wet and it just makes other things wet, but came out thinking water is wet because it's making itself wet, but a singular water molecule on its own isn't wet. Wait a sec... Ok ok wait. Water itself isn't wet. It's other water that makes it wet. Then again, wetness is a quality of an object that isn't provided by itself, but by another substance, specifically a liquid. When I hold a wet object, it isn't the object itself that makes it wet, nor the liquid, it's the fact that the liquid is touching the object. In this case, you would call the object wet, but not the liquid wet. Technically, that doesn't bar the liquid from ever being considered wet. What happens when two liquids touch each other? Well, if you are willing to call a liquid an object, then it is wet. Wait. Object. Is liquid an object? Holy shit wait. I was about to conclude my thought, but now I have another. Ok, I'll conclude my thought, and then move on. If a liquid touches another liquid, possibly itself, then it is technically wet. If you have one lone liquid molecule, then it is not wet. Therefore, the answer to the question "Is water wet?" Is purely conditional, depending on if there are at least two water molecules touching each other. I rest my case. Now to ask if water is an object. Ok, so I searched up the definition of object, and water is an object. I rest my case, again. TL;DR: A water molecule being wet is purely conditional. A water molecule is only wet when it is being touched by one or more liquid molecules. I rest my case. But, if you want to go really specific, then nothing can be wet. Technically, according to a vsauce video I watched over a year ago and barely have any memory of, nothing is touching each other, so nothing can be wet. But, avoiding that random thing, since nobody's gonna get out of a pool soaked in water and argue that they're not wet, I stick with my original conclusion.
Two thoughts. First, is a molecule not always touching itself? Second, the reasoning that says nothing is touching itself redefines touching, it does not disprove the concept. Now, touching simply means making objects interact in close proximity such that they can not pass through each other
OBJECTION You said that for something to be wet, it must be touched by *another* liquid. That means that if two water molecules touch each other they do not makes each other wet, that is because those two would basically form a bigger volume of water and thus making it the same liquid therefore not being any *another* liquid touching the original water molecules. So in conclusion i think that most liquids by themselves ( and some even in combination with each other because they combine ) are not wet. But if it's something as let's say water and oil, then yes you could call oil wet. This concludes my case
The definition of wet is inadequate. We do not apply the label “wet” to a liquid because of this exact problem: it makes no sense. Therefore, I propose a revision to the definition of the word “wet”: Describing a SOLID covered or saturated by water or another liquid. Thereby, at the molecular level, the word “wet” no longer applies because the state of matter of a substance is a property of many molecules acting together - solids are locked structures of molecules, liquids are loose associations, and gases looser associations still. Therefore, a single molecule of water is neither solid, liquid, or gas, and because it is not liquid, it cannot make other things wet, so water cannot make itself wet. You could claim that at the molecular level each molecule can be treated as a solid, but in that case because every molecule would be treated as solid there would be no agent to make other things wet. Ergo water is not wet because a) it is not a solid, and b) on the molecular level there is no such thing as states of matter. QED
Nah this is a better title because it had a purpose of being a debate and not just some random CZcams argument and CZcams arguments aren’t like this, they’re way more toxic
merriam-webster defines "wet" as: consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water) by this definition, all water is wet, as water consists of itself, a liquid by stricter definitions such as google, almost all water is wet, as even if a single molecule of water is not inherently wet, multiple water molecules cover each other in water, which is a liquid, ergo the water becomes wet. it may not be completely covered by water but it doesn't have to be - you don't want until your entire shirt is drenched with water before you say it's wet, you say it's wet when you get water on it ergo by the strictest definitions, for all but highly specific (and likely purely scientific) contexts, water is wet. by less strict definitions, water is inherently wet.
@@TheChlanders i mean if you wanna go there then nothing can ever be wet because molecules never actually touch to begin with like i said, outside of highly specific and almost exclusively scientific contexts, water basically touches and thus is wet. you kind of just proved my point
Wet is basically a simple definition of water molecules being on a object so if water touches another object a object turns wet Edit: We can just say one water molecule is not wet but two water molecules touching each other means that those molecules of water are wet Edit x2:So stuff being wet is just water on objects but you won’t say Hydrogen will make things wet or oxygen touching something so water isn’t wet I guess but it is because water is the thing we are saying that it’s wet but it’s just the definition of wet that is water touching a object I didn’t actually look up the definition of wet but I assume I’m correct because it’s the definition that is causing problems with “is water wet” Edit x3: I feel Weird and smart at the same time saying this
"Scientific" answer: Something is wet if it is saturated in water, for example, a napkin with a drop of water in it is a little wet, in one spot. Let's say, the mass proportion of napkin-water is 100:1. If you soak it in water, it's very wet, let's say 1:1. At some point, there is more water than napkin, if you leave it submerged in a bucket, the proportion might be 1:10. Then, if you submerge a small napkin in the whole-ass ocean, you'd say it's absurdly wet, the proportion would be something like 1:1 trillion or something. Basically, as the proportion of thing-water gets smaller and smaller, it becomes wetter and wetter. To the point where it would be so small, it'd be basically zero. So, if the proportion of thing-water is zero, you'd have just water. So pure water is the wettest of substances. QED.
Objection! The napkin stops being "wet" as defined long before it hits "zero" saturation. It would become napkin bits, then napkin particles, diluting into the water and becoming soup. Water doesn't wet itself, it can't touch itself or saturate itself.
REVISION! An object does not get "wetter" as it is surrounded by more water per se, it technically gets wetter as the substance gets saturated with water up to a maximum amount. A tissue submerged in the ocean is not wetter than a tissue submerged in the bathtub. And, by the very nature of wetness, a wet, with water saturated substance will still contain that water as it is raised out of the water, as the water will cling to it, making it wet in the first place. This is difficult to simulate with water, as raising a ball of water out of a bathtub without outside interference is nigh impossible. Or so it would seem, since attempting this in an area without the influence of gravity will lead to the water forming a big floating ball of itself due to the surface tension of water, which implies the substance in question in fact retaining the water it was soaked in and being wet. So water, as a substance absorbing the water it is soaked in instead of repelling it, is wet.
But everything has a specific capacity to absorb water. So it will stop at some point that's why the ratio won't be zero. Only if I understood whatever you wrote correctly since my phy and chem are drowning after lackdown.
I have a video idea! "is morning and evening a weather?" And the answer is obviously no bc the weather happens in Earth whilst morning and evening come from outside the Earth
OBJECTION! The definition of saturated is, according to google "holding as much water or moisture as can be absorbed; thoroughly soaked." However, water cannot absorb water, therefore could never be wet.
@@deltainfinium869 water has to, even in solid form, be wet, because of *dry ice* which is ice... *THAT CONTAINS NO WATER!!!*. Dry ice implies the existence of wet ice, which is what normal ice is! Because of that, each water molecule should act as a container for all other water molecules too!
@@theaviator1152 No to be burned is to be damaged or injured by heat/fire. It's possible to touch fire without being burned. It can burn, but isn't itself burned.
@@lintyscorpion2692 Okay, perhaps in that sense ‘burnt’ isn’t the correct word, but one definition of ‘burn’ is ‘be in flames.’ So in that sense, fire is burning as in ‘producing flames and heat while consuming a material such as coal or wood’ AND as in ‘being in flames.’ Therefore fire is *burnt* in multiple definitions (including the one of being in flames, which is the one relevant to my argument).
@@theaviator1152 It is only burning in the verb action, which is completely different then being burnt itself. Burning meaning it is burning something else. Which is completely irrelevant to my original statement. Water isn't wet the same reason that fire isn't on fire.
Let’s say I poured some water into a mug, about halfway full. If I pour some more water into that mug, does the water that was already there become more saturated? No. It’s just a larger sum of water. Also, it is impossible for water to cover itself, because water will always adapt to its surroundings and take on new forms. Water isn’t layered, like solids. It’s one mass of a certain amount of water. Therefore, because it does not cover or saturate itself, _water is not wet!_
If I put an apple in a bucket of water and it is saturated with water and then I pour more water in the bucket, has the apple become more saturated? No, because it’s already been saturated with as much water as currently possible, as would be the water molecules in the water.
Wouldn’t something have to be in a dryer surrounding to be called wet? Do you call something underwater wet before actually bringing it out of the water? What do you call it?
Pink Soul Eating Monster it would have to be in a dryer surrounding to be called wet, like imagine you’re a fish and your only surrounding is water, you wouldn’t call anything wet
for an object to be wet, the object would need to be able to be covered in a liquid. if the object is fluid in any manner, being in a non-solid state of matter, it wouldn't be able to be covered in a liquid, as the liquid would be moved through the object. therefore, as a liquid, water is not capable of being made wet by any type of liquid, including itself.
OBJECTION! You can cover a liquid with another liquid. For example, oil will not pass through water, but will instead stay atop it, therefore covering it!
"Water molecules are touching each other" Me, who knows that there is space between molecules: You may have outsmarted me but I have outsmarted your outsmarting
@@kirtil5177 yeah but I don't think water is wet. If they truly were toucing each other they would be considered wet. Also, water can't be wet if it can't be dry
@@agenti4734 sinces molecules cant truly contact each other, touching just means pushing molecules at each other until they repel each other because of the 'Pauli Exclusion Principle'. that means 2 or more molecules of water 'touching' each other makes both of them wet, and a single water molecule is dry
I actually asked my science teacher about this once. He said that technically, a single molecule of water isn’t wet. but two molecules of water make each other wet. Therefore, MOST water is wet.
I asked mine and every grade they just said "stop" in the most tired voice
Interesting
no you heathen
Objection!
Two molecules make each other wet, thats true, but that only prooves that the structure of water is wet, humans are 80% water and only our inside is wet and not our outside. Therefore only our structure is wet and not our outside, water only wets things, if you pour water on water you just increase the amount of water. The defense claims water ISN'T wet.
@@andjelostrbulovic FAX
"What? Water doesn't make things wet!
My body is roughly 60% water, and yet I've not been able to make a single person wet in my lifetime!"
Underrated as heck.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Viergin moment
Virgin Moment
ah here's Larry.
“Water isn’t wet”
My an intellectual:
Then Water is *Dry*
He’s too powerful to be kept alive.
@@paradox_turtles2812 but dry is wet
Dry water exist
@@shigure_puriyuji thick water exists too.
@@linkmaster253 yeah along with hard and soft
Godot: **Has a infinite amount of coffee in his cup**
Phoenix: **takes one**
Godot: HOW DO YOU HAVE THAT
Maybe he just takes *very smol sips*
@@bellomy7478 or, you know. One just magically slides toward him each time he smashes a cup on pheonix’s head
@@tubbytoes3005 nah, sometimes he gulps the coffee down for a few seconds for dramatic effect, putting the mug at an angle that would drain it.
The amount of coffee is definitely limited, as when he tosses the it at someone it drains and we can see the bottom. Another mug mysteriously slides into his opened palm afterwards.
I think we can safely conclude that the mug is magical in nature, but also that we need a spinoff game in which we follow Godots' life in prison in order to find out the nature of the phenomenon
@@cloaking111 thats really what I said. a cup of coffee slides towards him each time its offscreen or when its broken. the cup could just be slided over by an assistant.
Imagine being a detective your entire life to be hired to one court case asking if water is wet
I would be okay with this.
Getting paid to argue about a subject I have an opinion on. Wonderful!
Hahahaha
@@nathancarver7179 Be a lawyer then lol
Imagine your first day of being a lawyer and the judge asks eveyone this...
ARE YOU GAY
@@ee-tq3xu you're wet?
tbh its funnier when they are having mental breakdowns and not following normal procedures
this is an actual serious video lmao it’s about debating if water can be considered as wet or not isn’t that already clear
@@pogobod2128 No, water is clear.
@@clickpause8732
I google translated clear and I don’t get the joke
@@pogobod2128 Water is transparent, which is a synonym of clear.
Excuse me what the fuck water isn't clear
The lawyers during the whole video be like:
**Drinking intensifies**
more wetting the organism
@@vintprox hol’ up
@@vintproxholywaterholywaterholywaterholywaterholywaterholywater
@@shoyostoes3129 is holy water wet?
coffee dehydrates you though so its not wet
I expected this to be some typical discord chat or forum page argument, but this is so much better and I think it's fits right in the AA universe
I do not know
The script was well made ngl
@JuicySensei kinda odd ngl
.
fr it doesn't even feel like a meme
Click this: objection.lol
Except for the revised claim that " The surface of the water isn't wet" since the water on the surface is still in contact with other water molecules and therefore wet.
The fact that this fallacy wasn't called out but instead worked around seems like an oversight.
Next episode: “Is fire hot?”
Ye
Yes. Heat is tied to temperature, not fire. If something has a high temprature its hot.
@@ToluDude OBJECTION! there could be a cold fire. and "hot" isnt a specified temperature.
Hot is a subjective term. It's not really the fire making people feel hot, its our nerve cells reaction to the heat creating what we feel as hot. So fire can't be hot unless someone is there to feel it
@@yesiam7120 OBJECTION, there is no such thing as "cold fire". The lowest recorded is 200 to 300° which is still hot, and according to scientists, the body works best within a narrow range of body temperature- 36C to 37.5C
"The Question is: Is water wet?"
One minute later:
"Please call your first wittness"
That escalated quickly
*Welcome to another episode of:* *why is this in my recommended*
More like why does youtube know me so well
to me its more like oh no its another one of this again recommendation, but hey still loving it lmao
More like, another episode of searching up objection lol
CZcams kinda uses an algorithm to see what we like.
Another episode of: you fucking clicked on it thats why.
Once I was going to a pool and someone casually said "be careful, the water's wet"
"Be careful, something may be in the water." *smiles and walks off*
You might slip on the water, it's wet
Water Is Solid
Boi was spittin’ straight FACTS!❗️
Wow, the water in my pool is dry.
This is science class, *BUT BETTER*
The two smart kids in science class be like
@@oyasumi9916 lol
Waaaaay better than science classes
No Objections!
This is a science class I would LOVE to be a part of.
Can we make this comment ration the original commenter "pandad"?
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: No
Bruh
Yes is longer than no, so therefore, yes was the long answer.
Short answer: yes
Long answer: still yes
@@Yitewewoteli-dQw4w9WgXcQ *confused noises*
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Not really
"Water makes things wet!"
"Then it should make itself wet!"
Is where this should have ended.
Yup.
In order for something to be considered wet, then it must also equally apply to the opposite scenario that it can be considered dry. Is there ever a case where water is dry? No, therefore, water isn't wet.
Also, don't bother mentioning "dry water" since that's just a phrase describing something unrelated to actual water molecules.
@@Aesieda if water isnt wet then it is dry. There is no sugar coating it
@@BappO-is-me If something can be dry, it can also be wet. Water is neither dry nor wet, water is water.
@@Aesieda fire is dry but never wet
"ACCORDNG TO WIKIPEDIA"
Wright you lost me already lmfao
Damn didn't know my teacher was here
hi mr teacher man
wikipedia pages are just collections of sources made by like one person so it's understandable why a lot of people don't trust it
@@cupcqke8421 no everyone can make them but if you write something stupid it gets removed immediately.
@@helloworld5219 that's why trust worthy wikipedia articles show sources for each part, but it might be wrong and outdated
i literally screamed OH GOD when i read the title cus i just knew this one was gonna be CHAOTIC
I SAID THE EXACT SAME THING
We all can relate to this
No kidding there!
Nobody:
This entire video: G U L P G U L P G U L P
(Drinking sounds) YOU WOULD DO THAT TOO IF YOU WERE ADDICTED TO CUSTOM MADE COLUMBIAN COFFEE!!
I may have a dirty mind because I thought of something else when I saw this comment
"But at this point I don't even know what water is"
This is well done!
Woah Miles Edgeworth
It is I, the favorable Prosecutor.
@@kingblaze420 Nice
And ya don't even need to prove your case.
Can you say the autopsy report is outdated
Everyone: Is water wet?
Me: How tf godot teleported a mug of coffe to him?*
He used the force.
I still don’t know how he did that
@DB - 09SA 956706 Port Credit SS Although he burned Phoenix by throwing coffee at him? Lmao. I think that would at the very least revoke his coffee privileges In court. Furthermore, he could lose his job as well. However, thats only if the judge has an average IQ and not thirty points below average. Lol.
Here’s my issue with the whole water is wet argument.
Many that side with water is wet use that a single water molecule touching another single water molecule makes the water wet. But wetness doesn’t just talk about water molecules and applies to literally ANY liquid substance. (Most have water molecules in them) but if you were to put your hand in melted iron (ignoring that your hand is probably burning off if you actually did this) when you took your hand out it would be considered wet despite no water being present. So just water having the ability to make something wet isn’t considering actual rules of chemistry and a bunch of other complicated boogaloo.
Wetness is defined as “the ability of a liquid to adhere to the surface of a solid, so when we say that something is wet, we mean that the liquid is sticking to the surface of a material.” Water doesn’t adhere to itself because that’s a whole different definition entirely called cohesiveness. Which is literally just liquid preferring to stick with liquid of the same substance. “Cohesive forces are attractive forces within the liquid that cause the molecules in the liquid to prefer to stick together.” What makes something wet is a ratio balance between cohesiveness and adhesion. If the adhesion is greater than the cohesiveness then it becomes wet. But if cohesiveness is greater than adhesion then it’s actually dry. Which water has EXTREMELY strong cohesiveness so water is actually dry and not wet.
scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=6097
How the hell did you go from "Wetness is defined as “the ability of a liquid to adhere to the surface of a solid, " and then arrive at "Water doesn’t adhere to itself, thus it's not wet?" By the first definition you just gave, water has wetness because it's a liquid that adheres to a surface...and then you just completely forgot that water is a liquid that sticks to things in the next sentence and called it dry.
@@myau9912, water sticking to itself is cohesion not adhesion.
@@unstoppable6249 That's nice, but it adheres to other things with its wetness.
@@myau9912, it adheres to other things, but what determines if a liquid is dry or wet is the ratio between adhesion and cohesion. If it is more adhesive than it is cohesive then it would be wet. If it is more cohesive than adhesive it is not wet.
Water is much much more cohesive than it is adhesive, if you've ever watched water roll down a window you'd notice that while yes it is sticking to the window it is following the same path as the water droplet before it that had left some water in its trail.
Sometimes it breaks off and then hits a dry spot on the window before getting back on the "water trail" but this is because the droplet gets to heavy and loses its tension. (Something that is an entirely different subject)
@@unstoppable6249 Good thing wetness has different levels then. Though I dont know why the fuck Im wasting time arguing with someone who says water is dry.
"Today I will finally prove to all the heathens who doubt what should be a universally accepted fact:"
*CHUGS LIKE THERE'S NO TOMMOROW*
OBJECTION! Since the surface molecules are touching water... *points finger* IT IS STILL WET! The example given by the defense is faulty because it ignores the fact that the inner molecules of the mug and the outer molecules of the mug are different. So, while only certain sides of the mug are wet, the entire molecules of those surfaces are also wet, just like the surface water molecules!
Edit: After a long debate with BeelzebubFailure, we have come to an agreement. The following is a conclusion that we have both agreed upon, and that I feel sums up the debate well:
Water, by itself and as a single molecule, is not intrinsically wet. It has no property that can make itself wet. However, water in the presence of other water molecules, given there is enough to consider some molecules as covered, those covered molecules become wet.
HOLD IT! The definition given by the prosecution asserts that to be considered "wet" the object has to be "covered or saturated with water or another liquid". Since the water molecules are in contact with air they cannot be fully covered in other water molecules. True the inside of the mug is wet, but that doesn't mean that the mug in its entirety is wet!
@@Dctr-mg8km HOLD IT! If the mug was underwater, there would be little to no air to separate the mug from the water, and ALL of the mug would be wet. Therefore, the water from the inside of the mug touches the water from the outside of the mug, making it W E T.
Yoshibro26 HOLD IT! THERES A GAP BETWEEN THE MOLECULES OF WATER. MEANING, THERES STILL AIR.
@@2chill2bbored72 HOLD IT
Water is wet because i watch to much HENTAI
AND U KNOW IT
@@thecabz2158 HOLD IT! Hentai is drawn, so it has nothing to do with this case!
"the molecules were touching eachother"
Physics: "am I a joke to you?"
Chemistry: "am I a joke to you?"
Well, if you say that the existence of a gap means they are not touching, then nothing is, therefore nothing can be wet. However, it should be obvious that what is commonly referred to as touching is, in fact, electron repulsion. Therefore, water molecules were indeed touching each other.
The repulsion of molecules creates the reaction that we know as touching
Social distancing ;-;
@@user-yo7hz8gw4t yes he Said exactly that
“Water makes things wet”
My girlfriend: *insert monkey puppet meme*
I love how simple questions with a yes or no answer turn into a full blown court discussion and argument
"is water wet?"
the judge five minutes later: *chuckles* I am in danger
*confused trampling in gallery*
"According to this Wikipedia article..."
Teacher be like:
"OBJECTION! Wikipedia is not a valid source, therefore his statement is invalid!"
Wikipedia is the law of the universe!
I was expecting them to say that too 😂
@@sorensharp4377 agreed.
Most people just don't know about the history function and the citations. Being able to see the past versions of a Wikipedia article and the citations makes my mind at rest since it would be significantly harder for a random editor to get away with a lie.
I've only encountered one mistake (not lie) that I knew myself was wrong. It was a simple error where the time period in part of the article implied a different end point of said time then what was later stated in the article.
And guess what. I just edited the time period to be correct (the point in time was correct).
HOLD IT, THATS WHERE EVERYONE GETS THEIR INFORMATION FROM.
The moment The Fragrance of Dark Coffee kicks in ♪ ♥
It began with "Is water wet?" To "Let's get te old man"
Now i'm worring about him
I love when the judge just said "ehh at this point I don't even know what water is" 🤣😂😆
*_OBJECTION!_*
I’m afraid all the water molecules touching is _scientifically impossible._
Touch, as we understand it, is when the boundaries of two objects are in the same location... however, molecules _don’t have boundaries!_
@@timfoil big brain
@@timfoil help my brain is exploding
@Hello World Molecules do not connect entirely. Things called Electrons repel the two, like anything, while we still feel the touch. And if we can be considered set through the repelling, then water can still be wet going by the same definition.
@Hello World Wet*
@@robocatssj3theofficial wut
I love how well you write! This is the best objection thing I’ve ever seen.
It was truly remarkable how he calmly argued that the outside of the cup was indeed not wet as the coffee had not touched that part, whereas the rest of us would’ve been too dumbfounded by the accusation to offer a rebuttal.
water isn’t wet because a liquid can’t saturate or cover itself. if i attempted to pour water on water, it would just create a larger amount of water
can you prove that you didn't make it wetter?
@@engineergaming9188 can you prove that they *did* make it wetter?
Pour oil on water. Is it wet now?
@FGV Cosmic
sure
@@fgvcosmic6752 no because oil floats on water
I think something wet is something that could be dry. Clothes can be wet or dry. Water can't be dry. Therefore, to call it wet doesn't make sense, since it won't ever be dry.
What about ice?
@@AlexS-sc3gb I don't know what you mean exactly but dry ice is solid carbon dyoxide, it's not water.
even if it won't ever get dry, it's still wet
So when water evaporates and leaves impurities that were dissolved in the water, are they wet despite being indistinguishable while water is present?
it cant get dry so it cant be wet??? that is the shittiest arguement ive ever seen
Phoenix should’ve said “YOU CANT HAVE DRY WATER”
You can, it exists.
@@neg1346 that silica water isn’t “dry water” it the most true/literal definition. They only call it that because it’s water and it appears to be dry. But underneath every silica coating the droplet, the liquid water is still there.
Btw, this statement, if you’re smart, debunks the entire “water is wet” argument. It’s so dumb. If i hire somebody, I should ask them if water is wet, and if they say yes then I know they have no critical thinking skills and I won’t hire them lol.
I do like how well this was formatted.
This comment started out as a random comment, but I actually ended up coming up with a solid conclusion. So, if you want to read the TL;DR, it's there at the end. I suggest those who do read through my bullshit to read the TL;DR too, since I made one minor tweak to my conclusion. I'm very confident in my conclusion.
I came here with the opinion that water isn't wet and it just makes other things wet, but came out thinking water is wet because it's making itself wet, but a singular water molecule on its own isn't wet. Wait a sec... Ok ok wait. Water itself isn't wet. It's other water that makes it wet. Then again, wetness is a quality of an object that isn't provided by itself, but by another substance, specifically a liquid. When I hold a wet object, it isn't the object itself that makes it wet, nor the liquid, it's the fact that the liquid is touching the object. In this case, you would call the object wet, but not the liquid wet. Technically, that doesn't bar the liquid from ever being considered wet. What happens when two liquids touch each other? Well, if you are willing to call a liquid an object, then it is wet. Wait. Object. Is liquid an object? Holy shit wait. I was about to conclude my thought, but now I have another. Ok, I'll conclude my thought, and then move on. If a liquid touches another liquid, possibly itself, then it is technically wet. If you have one lone liquid molecule, then it is not wet. Therefore, the answer to the question "Is water wet?" Is purely conditional, depending on if there are at least two water molecules touching each other. I rest my case. Now to ask if water is an object. Ok, so I searched up the definition of object, and water is an object. I rest my case, again.
TL;DR: A water molecule being wet is purely conditional. A water molecule is only wet when it is being touched by one or more liquid molecules. I rest my case.
But, if you want to go really specific, then nothing can be wet. Technically, according to a vsauce video I watched over a year ago and barely have any memory of, nothing is touching each other, so nothing can be wet. But, avoiding that random thing, since nobody's gonna get out of a pool soaked in water and argue that they're not wet, I stick with my original conclusion.
A single water molecule can't even be considered a liquid. Therefore water, in liquid form, is always wet
Two thoughts. First, is a molecule not always touching itself?
Second, the reasoning that says nothing is touching itself redefines touching, it does not disprove the concept. Now, touching simply means making objects interact in close proximity such that they can not pass through each other
what the actual... wh... uh.. i can't read that i'm too lazy.
OBJECTION You said that for something to be wet, it must be touched by *another* liquid. That means that if two water molecules touch each other they do not makes each other wet, that is because those two would basically form a bigger volume of water and thus making it the same liquid therefore not being any *another* liquid touching the original water molecules. So in conclusion i think that most liquids by themselves ( and some even in combination with each other because they combine ) are not wet. But if it's something as let's say water and oil, then yes you could call oil wet. This concludes my case
U
Wet is a loosely defined word, and implies liquid covering something, to call liquid in its self not wet is a fallacy of definision not of reality.
Then what is your definition?
@@digaddog6099 something's wet if it feels wet
@@TsarofTrolling exactly which means water is wet
Exactly, adjectives don't define the root word itself. Flames can't be burnt.
@@syundown6005 they can
The argument: is water wet?
me looking at the coffee mugs: the real question is, are they even drinking it?
I love that this topic keeps getting revisited with new arguments.
_"...at this point i don't even know what water is."_
LMFAOOOOO that was good
Godot drank so much coffee his throat stopped working
The amount of coffee being drunk by one guy is insane... and i can't get over the gulping sounds
My class is about to have a debate about this too.thanks for the information
0:38 How did you do that-
Hold it!/Take That!
Are we NOT gonna talk about how they're drinking from the same freaking cup of coffee?!?!?!!?!!?!?!?
That Sound really *Gay*
You see the amount of coffee he'll ever have is "§" so it makes sense.
They should have mentioned that single water molecules are not wet because they have no water around them that is completely unarguable.
The entire court has attacked the judge 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I can't even remember what side I'm on for this one-
The definition of wet is inadequate. We do not apply the label “wet” to a liquid because of this exact problem: it makes no sense. Therefore, I propose a revision to the definition of the word “wet”:
Describing a SOLID covered or saturated by water or another liquid.
Thereby, at the molecular level, the word “wet” no longer applies because the state of matter of a substance is a property of many molecules acting together - solids are locked structures of molecules, liquids are loose associations, and gases looser associations still. Therefore, a single molecule of water is neither solid, liquid, or gas, and because it is not liquid, it cannot make other things wet, so water cannot make itself wet.
You could claim that at the molecular level each molecule can be treated as a solid, but in that case because every molecule would be treated as solid there would be no agent to make other things wet.
Ergo water is not wet because a) it is not a solid, and b) on the molecular level there is no such thing as states of matter. QED
lmao the "it makes no sense" part got me
Hey guys water is solid now
@@calamity2956 So just ice
@@justcallmekai1554 I guess
Oh
It's the fact that it looks like they're sipping from the same coffee mug
This was so well done that, when Ema got on the stand, I was about to touch the Court Record button to look at her profile.
They should rename this to "CZcams arguments in a nutshell"
Nah this is a better title because it had a purpose of being a debate and not just some random CZcams argument and CZcams arguments aren’t like this, they’re way more toxic
I've had this exact argument with my brother before.
I love how today i had a class about water and molecules, and this appears in recommended
i keep watching videos like these and the way godot drinks his coffee just really makes me crave coffee. I haven't even played the games.
man that guy with the white hair really loves his coffee
I just realized judge in trilogy is so older than judge on spirit of justice and dual destinies that look younger
Honestly learnt so much from this video
I need to finish my task but can't help to watch this , that was so cool !!
merriam-webster defines "wet" as: consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)
by this definition, all water is wet, as water consists of itself, a liquid
by stricter definitions such as google, almost all water is wet, as even if a single molecule of water is not inherently wet, multiple water molecules cover each other in water, which is a liquid, ergo the water becomes wet. it may not be completely covered by water but it doesn't have to be - you don't want until your entire shirt is drenched with water before you say it's wet, you say it's wet when you get water on it
ergo by the strictest definitions, for all but highly specific (and likely purely scientific) contexts, water is wet. by less strict definitions, water is inherently wet.
@@TheChlanders i mean if you wanna go there then nothing can ever be wet because molecules never actually touch to begin with
like i said, outside of highly specific and almost exclusively scientific contexts, water basically touches and thus is wet. you kind of just proved my point
@@montomotry5378 yeah, then water is wet, i agree
What if I said water was moist?
Yea
Succulently moist
@@khajiitimanus7432 No-
Also I love how they’re getting the information from websites that wouldn’t really help you the best in these situations
Wet is basically a simple definition of water molecules being on a object so if water touches another object a object turns wet
Edit: We can just say one water molecule is not wet but two water molecules touching each other means that those molecules of water are wet
Edit x2:So stuff being wet is just water on objects but you won’t say Hydrogen will make things wet or oxygen touching something so water isn’t wet I guess but it is because water is the thing we are saying that it’s wet but it’s just the definition of wet that is water touching a object I didn’t actually look up the definition of wet but I assume I’m correct because it’s the definition that is causing problems with “is water wet”
Edit x3: I feel Weird and smart at the same time saying this
"Scientific" answer:
Something is wet if it is saturated in water, for example, a napkin with a drop of water in it is a little wet, in one spot. Let's say, the mass proportion of napkin-water is 100:1. If you soak it in water, it's very wet, let's say 1:1. At some point, there is more water than napkin, if you leave it submerged in a bucket, the proportion might be 1:10. Then, if you submerge a small napkin in the whole-ass ocean, you'd say it's absurdly wet, the proportion would be something like 1:1 trillion or something. Basically, as the proportion of thing-water gets smaller and smaller, it becomes wetter and wetter. To the point where it would be so small, it'd be basically zero. So, if the proportion of thing-water is zero, you'd have just water. So pure water is the wettest of substances. QED.
Why do i feel so tired...?
Objection!
The napkin stops being "wet" as defined long before it hits "zero" saturation. It would become napkin bits, then napkin particles, diluting into the water and becoming soup. Water doesn't wet itself, it can't touch itself or saturate itself.
REVISION!
An object does not get "wetter" as it is surrounded by more water per se, it technically gets wetter as the substance gets saturated with water up to a maximum amount. A tissue submerged in the ocean is not wetter than a tissue submerged in the bathtub. And, by the very nature of wetness, a wet, with water saturated substance will still contain that water as it is raised out of the water, as the water will cling to it, making it wet in the first place. This is difficult to simulate with water, as raising a ball of water out of a bathtub without outside interference is nigh impossible. Or so it would seem, since attempting this in an area without the influence of gravity will lead to the water forming a big floating ball of itself due to the surface tension of water, which implies the substance in question in fact retaining the water it was soaked in and being wet. So water, as a substance absorbing the water it is soaked in instead of repelling it, is wet.
But everything has a specific capacity to absorb water. So it will stop at some point that's why the ratio won't be zero.
Only if I understood whatever you wrote correctly since my phy and chem are drowning after lackdown.
Which is more wet, fresh or salt water.
Plot twist: Mr. Godot 'Coffee' is beer
I have a video idea!
"is morning and evening a weather?"
And the answer is obviously no bc the weather happens in Earth whilst morning and evening come from outside the Earth
I literally live for the characters saying *OBJECTION*
Bro how many coffee does this guy have? And who keeps giving him more?!
The real question is how did he get a coffee mug out of thin air
Yes I’m thinking the same thing. in fact I’m building a case against Phoenix to sue him for breaking the laws of physics
I love how formal it is compared to other objection.lols
3:52
i like how phoenix says one singular exclamation mark and he has a straight face, plus he says a emotion.
This is like Science just really intense
Her: "I like you because you're smart ;)"
Me: * Title name *
god if you make a ‘godot drinking from his mug sound compilation’ I’d be set for life
What a Great topic for a 2 am existential crisis Video binge xD
Can we admire the fact that the coffee mug has infinite coffee?
Objection!
The definition of water is touching or SATURATED with water, and water itself is 100% saturated with water, therefore, water is wet.
OBJECTION! The definition of saturated is, according to google "holding as much water or moisture as can be absorbed; thoroughly soaked."
However, water cannot absorb water, therefore could never be wet.
@@deltainfinium869 water has to, even in solid form, be wet, because of *dry ice* which is ice... *THAT CONTAINS NO WATER!!!*. Dry ice implies the existence of wet ice, which is what normal ice is! Because of that, each water molecule should act as a container for all other water molecules too!
I love how they were taking it seriously up until the end
I love that they get witnesses and judges just to fight over if water is wet, lol.
My girlfriend and I argued about this on date night.
... I can assure you that she was certainly NOT wet.
Is oil oily?
Oh NO 😬😬😬😬
i mean people don't call oil oily , but if oil is found on their face , they would say the face is oily.
Bruh this questions hit harder
ah shoot here we go again
"Ah shit, here we go again"
i love this format
Why are objection.lol videos so entertaining yet educational
At first I thought water isn’t wet itself, but makes things wet...
But then I realized, *how can water make other things wet if it isn’t wet itself?*
The same way that fire sets other things on fire, but isn't itself on fire
@@lintyscorpion2692 Fire burns what it touches yeah? And fire touches itself? Therefore fire is burnt.
@@theaviator1152 No to be burned is to be damaged or injured by heat/fire. It's possible to touch fire without being burned. It can burn, but isn't itself burned.
@@lintyscorpion2692 Okay, perhaps in that sense ‘burnt’ isn’t the correct word, but one definition of ‘burn’ is ‘be in flames.’ So in that sense, fire is burning as in ‘producing flames and heat while consuming a material such as coal or wood’ AND as in ‘being in flames.’
Therefore fire is *burnt* in multiple definitions (including the one of being in flames, which is the one relevant to my argument).
@@theaviator1152 It is only burning in the verb action, which is completely different then being burnt itself. Burning meaning it is burning something else. Which is completely irrelevant to my original statement. Water isn't wet the same reason that fire isn't on fire.
Let’s say I poured some water into a mug, about halfway full. If I pour some more water into that mug, does the water that was already there become more saturated? No. It’s just a larger sum of water. Also, it is impossible for water to cover itself, because water will always adapt to its surroundings and take on new forms. Water isn’t layered, like solids. It’s one mass of a certain amount of water. Therefore, because it does not cover or saturate itself, _water is not wet!_
If I put an apple in a bucket of water and it is saturated with water and then I pour more water in the bucket, has the apple become more saturated? No, because it’s already been saturated with as much water as currently possible, as would be the water molecules in the water.
Pedobear TheBeast then why wouldn’t the molecules repel the rest of the water like the apple does
But that argument doesn’t make sense on a molecular level, because that would imply that everything covers itself at all times.
can you prove the pre existing mass isnt wet already
Im waiting for the day i find myself in an argument so chaotic i can make my own objection.lol
Probably the BEST objection.lol in history.
Wouldn’t something have to be in a dryer surrounding to be called wet? Do you call something underwater wet before actually bringing it out of the water? What do you call it?
Pink Soul Eating Monster it would have to be in a dryer surrounding to be called wet, like imagine you’re a fish and your only surrounding is water, you wouldn’t call anything wet
Pink Soul Eating Monster :|
for an object to be wet, the object would need to be able to be covered in a liquid. if the object is fluid in any manner, being in a non-solid state of matter, it wouldn't be able to be covered in a liquid, as the liquid would be moved through the object. therefore, as a liquid, water is not capable of being made wet by any type of liquid, including itself.
OBJECTION!
You can cover a liquid with another liquid. For example, oil will not pass through water, but will instead stay atop it, therefore covering it!
God I love watching these when I should be sleeping
You have asked the mother of all science questions
"Water molecules are touching each other"
Me, who knows that there is space between molecules: You may have outsmarted me but I have outsmarted your outsmarting
by same logic nothing is wet, because everything is made of molecules that all have space between each other
@@kirtil5177 yeah but I don't think water is wet. If they truly were toucing each other they would be considered wet. Also, water can't be wet if it can't be dry
@@agenti4734 sinces molecules cant truly contact each other, touching just means pushing molecules at each other until they repel each other because of the 'Pauli Exclusion Principle'.
that means 2 or more molecules of water 'touching' each other makes both of them wet, and a single water molecule is dry
@@kirtil5177 but can water be dry?
@@agenti4734 yeah as i said technically a single random molecule of water is dry, as long as it doesnt have other water molecules next to it
Why objection.lol is a gift from god in 6 minutes or less
1: This video
2: This entire channel
1:54 and also water molecules and other atoms touching each other would mean fusion