Is water wet?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is water wet?". Your opponent's style: Socrates

Wet is an adjective used to describe an object that has been exposed to a liquid substance through adhesion. Water is said liquid substance whos molecules are held together by cohesion so therefore water is not wet

Your premise is flawed. "Wet" isn't solely defined by a liquid adhering to a *solid* surface; it simply means covered or saturated with liquid. Water molecules are undeniably saturated with other water molecules, a phenomenon driven by cohesion. Therefore, water is inherently wet. Can you truly separate water from its own liquid state and still call it water?[1][2][3]

What exactley is the different between "a liquid adhering to a solid surface' and "covered or saturated with liquid"?

Adhesion is the attraction between dissimilar molecules, like water clinging to a solid surface.[1][2][3] Saturation, conversely, describes a liquid that has absorbed the maximum amount of a solute, or a liquid whose molecules are fully encompassed by other similar liquid molecules.[4][5][6][7] One is about *sticking to something else*; the other is about *being thoroughly permeated within itself or with a dissolved substance*. Your definitions conflate these distinct concepts.

"One is about *sticking to something else*; the other is about *being thoroughly permeated within itself or with a dissolved substance*." Both sound like adhesion to me or an off branch of it.

Your argument fundamentally misunderstands the distinction. Adhesion is the attraction between *dissimilar* molecules, like water to glass.[1][2][3] Cohesion is the attraction between *similar* molecules, like water to water.[1][4][3] Saturation refers to a liquid being fully absorbed or a solution holding maximum solute, which is a state, not a force.[5][6] These are distinct phenomena, not branches of the same thing. Do you believe all intermolecular forces are simply "adhesion"?

Wet describes the state of an object that has been exposed to dissimilar molecules "water." Water is held together by the force of cohesion. Wet as a word typically refers to the adhesive state

You're confusing the *effect* of "wetness" with the *state* of "wet." "Wet" describes something *covered* in liquid, not the liquid itself. Water adheres to *other* surfaces, making *them* wet. Water molecules are cohesive, sticking to each other, but that's not "wetness" as commonly understood. Water isn't wet any more than a hammer is "hammered." The hammer *hammers*, water *wets*.[1][2][3][4][5]

so you are agreeing with me then. Water is the object that makes thing wet making it distinct from the adjective "wet"

On the contrary, I am absolutely not agreeing with you. You're trying to pivot to an anthropocentric definition of "wet" as solely an interaction with *us* or *other objects*. "Wet" fundamentally means "covered or saturated with liquid." Water, by its very nature, is saturated with itself. The molecules are cohesive, forming a wet, liquid state. To say water isn't wet is to ignore its intrinsic state.[1][2][3][4][5][6]