CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA this is probably the funniest debate I've seen all week, yes the person who created this is probably a bit of a troll, but it's hilarious how far this simple question about water escalated...
Being a liquid, water is not itself wet, but is capable of making other solid materials wet. When we say that something is wet, we mean that it has absorbed a liquid.
Wetness is 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.
That would make wetness a verb you retarded idiot. Liquids have no abilities and wetness is the natural physical state of liquids which -- he reels in puzzled bemusement -- is why they make other things wet. Go figure.
You're literally stupid as fuck pal. 😆
This question is not a debate. It's a troll from the 1980s.
That would make wetness a verb you retarded idiot.
Shut up you retard and let your correction commence did you ever hear of an adjective ? No , I thought so
‘Wet’ is both an adjective and a verb. You can have a wet towel (adjective) and with that you can wet an object (verb).
Liquids have no abilities and wetness is the natural physical state of liquids which --
Nonsense , I’m afraid Science is against you
he reels in puzzled bemusement -- is why they make other things wet. Go figure.
I know you’re a Science denier let me help you , water by itself cannot express wetness. Wetting is something that can happen where three substances meet: usually (but not always) a solid, a liquid and a gas
You're literally stupid as fuck pal. 😆
Yet you’re the Science denier ......let’s revisit ...remember you quoted a Janitor as being an ‘expert ‘ on the twin towers collapsing at 9/11? 😳🤣🤣🤣🤣
This question is not a debate. It's a troll from the 1980s.
Yes used to troll idiots like you and it’s worked 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I expect it is to one so intellectually challenged. This is what is known in mathematics as a double negative, whereby an idiot interprets intelligence as stupidity. Indeed, sometimes idiots do it deliberately, because they are unwilling to deal with the embarrassment of their own idiocy. Alas, such is the unfortunate case we are faced with at this present moment.
‘Wet’ is both an adjective and a verb.
The word you used was "wetness", not "wet" you ridiculously stupid idiot. You're a total joke. I debunk one thing and you pretend you've said another. What is the literal point you fucking retard?
I expect it is to one so intellectually challenged. This is what is known in mathematics as a double negative, whereby an idiot interprets intelligence as stupidity. Indeed, sometimes idiots do it deliberately, because they are unwilling to deal with the embarrassment of their own idiocy. Alas, such is the unfortunate case we are faced with at this present moment.
Translation.......you got owned ......again
‘Wet’ is both an adjective and a verb.
The word you used was "wetness", not wet you ridiculously stupid idiot. You're a total joke.
Stop embarrassing yourself accept your correction, read a science book and maybe one on grammar also ?
I debunk one thing and you pretend you've said another. What is the literal point you fucking retard?
Translation......I defeated you as usual with my opening salvo and you’re crying 😢 .......again ......how many whippings a week do I give you I’ve lost count ?
You schooled everybody that you are stupid, dishonest and mentally unstable enough to pretend you said something different when what you actually said is criticised for being stupid. Well done for that.
You proved to everybody that I am stupid, dishonest and mentally unstable enough to pretend I said something different when what I actually said you correctly criticized me for being stupid. Well done for that.
Thanks son , now buy a decent science book and maybe one on basic English?
Speak soon dear. I shall count the days until we next meet. Know that every time I pleasure myself I will think of you and the long words you send me during our games where we both pretend we are rational, intelligent people. 🤣🤣🤣😆😆😆🤦♂️
Speak soon dear. I shall count the days until we next meet. Know that every time I pleasure myself I will think of you and the long words you send me during our games where we both pretend we are rational, intelligent people.
Oh Jace. Your warm breath on the back of my neck as I quote Joseph Goebbels is heaven on Earth. Let us throw caution to the wind and make love on this fine strudel. 🤣🤣🤣😆😆😆🤦♂️
Oh Jace. Your warm breath on the back of my neck as I quote Joseph Goebbels is heaven on Earth. Let us throw caution to the wind and make love on this fine strudel.
Wow ! You got it bad buddy .....I hope it works out for you 💃💃
Wetness is a sensory perception experienced by the perceiver. It is not an attribute of any thing itself. Water is not wet. We experience water as wet.
Oh for God's sake shut up. You're a complete idiot. Please shut up.
I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. Means no.
A thing is either objectively wet or objectively not wet
You have provided no intellectual support for this stupid and pointless argument.
You have provided no intellectual support for this stupid and pointless argument.
I have, actually, but as the simpler analysis has already eluded your meager cerebral capacities it would hardly behoove me to elaborate upon it at any greater length.
So do pigs experience water as dry then? Is that why they drink it? If an alien came over from the next galaxy would he think it was dry?
Being neither a pig nor an alien I cannot speak to their subjective sensory perceptions or motivations.
I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. Means no.
Failure to grasp the basics of grammar (i.e. sentence construction etc...) implies that the long words you use are not a result of a good command of English, but rather the product of having your pathologically narcissistic nose permanently entrenched in the online thesaurus. People who genuinely have good vocabularies do not struggle with the basics of English grammar, and your failure to understand this before you begin pontificating like the useless, arrogant idiot you indubitably are, leads one to the conclusion that you are suffering from a mental health condition.
You have provided no intellectual support for this stupid and pointless argument.
Self-evident premises do not need to be supported intellectually because they are self evident. One thousand people in the same room with a wet towel would all concur that the towel is wet, therefore the idea that wetness is objective is self-evidently true.
I have, actually,
You do not even understand when and where not to use a comma, so you'll forgive me if I facepalm while groaning in a manner reminiscent of perpetual agony.
Failure to grasp the basics of grammar (i.e. sentence construction etc...) implies that the long words you use are not a result of a good command of English, but rather the product of having your pathologically narcissistic nose permanently entrenched in the online thesaurus. People who genuinely have good vocabularies do not struggle with the basics of English grammar, and your failure to understand this before you begin pontificating like the useless, arrogant idiot you indubitably are, leads one to the conclusion that you are suffering from a mental health condition.
Speaking of compensating with verbosity. Mine was a quote; what's your excuse? LMAO.
Self-evident premises do not need to be supported intellectually because they are self evident. One thousand people in the same room with a wet towel would all concur that the towel is wet, therefore the idea that wetness is objective is self-evidently true.
Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Nice. The problem with 'self-evident' arguments is that they're inevitably unpersuasive to people who do not find your alleged truths to be evident.
You do not even understand when and where not to use a comma, so you'll forgive me if I facepalm while groaning in a manner reminiscent of perpetual agony.
No, I, shan't forgive, you, anything. I, will, however compound, your, agony with, sadistic glee.
Speaking of compensating with verbosity. Mine was a quote; what's your excuse?
Do you have even the slightest idea of how poor your grasp of grammar is?
Argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Lol. You are just so reprehensibly stupid it's offensive even reading your completely erroneous trash. An appeal to popularity is not the same thing as an appeal to total ubiquitous agreement, idiot. It is not a fallacy to say that fire is self-evidently hot on the grounds that everybody in the entire world agrees that fire is hot.
Do you have even the slightest idea of how poor your grasp of grammar is?
I'm, delightfully unaware, of exactly, how, poor.
Lol. You are just so reprehensibly stupid it's offensive even reading your completely erroneous trash. An appeal to popularity is not the same thing as an appeal to total ubiquitous agreement, idiot. It is not a fallacy to say that fire is self-evidently hot on the grounds that everybody in the entire world agrees that fire is hot.
Ad hominem, too. Stack em up. There isn't total ubiquitous agreement; I disagree, for one. Ergo, argumentum ad populum. And, just basically, 'everyone believes it' isn't proof that the belief is sound because there's no proof that consensus is truth-finding.
Lol. No, it isn't an ad hominem to point out that you are being stupid. Stupid isn't a matter of opinion. You might wish stupid was a matter of opinion, but it isn't.
There isn't total ubiquitous agreement
Obviously yes there is you stupid woman. Any one thousand people you placed in a room with a soaking wet towel would all agree that the towel is wet. That is a self-evident fact and it is not an ad hominem to point out that disagreeing with it is stupid.
Ergo, argumentum ad populum.
Ergo you are a complete and total retard. By your logic, if I threw a lump of wood into the sea it would be the only thing in there which was wet. That is the level of your impressively vast, mind-blowing stupidity.
Lol. No, it isn't an ad hominem to point out that you are being stupid. Stupid isn't a matter of opinion. You might wish stupid was a matter of opinion, but it isn't.
Stupidity is of course a matter of opinion. Only stupid people believe intelligence is objective. And it's ab hominem because you're making weak efforts at undermining my character instead of responding to my argument.
Obviously yes there is you stupid woman. Any one thousand people you placed in a room with a soaking wet towel would all agree that the towel is wet. That is a self-evident fact and it is not an ad hominem to point out that disagreeing with it is stupid.
Still not a woman, but I guess you still need your misogyny to fall back on. Literally if one being in existence disagrees then there is not total agreement; I disagree. Your argument is still fallacious no matter how many times you regurgitate it in progressively incoherent form.
Ergo you are a complete and total retard. By your logic, if I threw a lump of wood into the sea it would be the only thing in there which was wet. That is the level of your impressively vast, mind-blowing stupidity.
Ah, there's that ablism again. By my logic the wood would not be wet unless it experienced itself as wet (which seems unlikely). Obviously, you don't get my argument at all... which goes well towards explaining your overt reliance on bigoted ad hominem ya noxious asshat.
Only stupid people believe intelligence is objective.
Where to even begin. Firstly, I made no comment about intelligence. My comment was about stupidity, so on top of your mental health problems you also struggle with basic reading comprehension. Secondly, we measure intelligence through a variety of means, which could only ever happen if intelligence were objective. Thirdly, the domination of humanity over the animal kingdom proves that intelligence is objective.
It was six paragraphs of crap, so... you're desperately overestimating how deep your ignorance goes, in a desperate attempt to make yourself feel better about your incomprehension.
stupid isn't a matter of opinion
No, that is a statement of opinion, because it's a statement of superiority. I could just as well have said, "You are being stupid, and there isn't really any other way to be". Also, 'opinion' is generally referring to a thing which is arguable, not the very nature of something - stupidity is not arguable, just like stupidity is not flyable. If you'd like to expand on that particularly ludicrous theory of yours, then by all means go ahead.
the domination of humanity over the animal kingdom
No. No. No. And once more, NO. You cannot possibly be that ignorant or idiotic. Humans are only dominant to the extent that the adolescent male, in an incompatible symbiosis with the female who is metaphorically castrated during the process, is the most destructive form of life on the planet - so much so that just being human causes other species to lose out to a miserable percentage. And your view of humanity is not contingent on your particular environment, so to speak; that's why racism (such as it is towards animals) isn't so neatly confined to your extravagantly wealthy civilisation. Conversely, pretty much all animals are superior to humans to the extent that they require only the barest minimum of grooming compared to your utterly abhorrent metrosexuality / gross, invasive femininity. And: the dominance of animals is caused by hostile reaction to human intrusion; why don't you apply the same ruthless logic you bring to bear on human oppression to the defenders of the planet you so thoughtlessly affect, you disgusting objectifying idiot.
Firstly, I made no comment about intelligence.
Obviously, because you know your argument is weak so you can't admit it when you rely on it. Try again.
You are a woman and you are an idiot.
Nope. He's still not a woman. You talk about objectiveness yet you talk about gender like it's a subjective opinion. If that's not stupid then nothing is stupid. 90% of your time on this page is taken up with childish tit-for-tat personal digs and nonsensical insults. You are the fake sexist here despite your explicit public rejection of stereotypes. You are nothing of the kind you want to represent.
