Water is wet Water is wet because water is surrounded by other water molecules, right? The molecules are touching, so water would then be wet, the water molecules are getting each other wet. If you are underwater, you are wet. The water is touching you, your skin has been saturated with water. You have water touching you, you can't say that you aren't wet underwater when you literally have water touching you. Wet is used to describe something, not what it does to something. Water also can't make other things wet if it is not wet itself. That's like saying fire can't burn things because it's not burning in of itself (fire is an energy, not a physical thing, I'm just being hypothetical) For all of you saying water isn't wet because you have to be able to remove the water from the surface or whatever, you can take water away from water. You can remove water molecules from other molecules. Say you were to put a towel in a pool, you are removing the water from the poo. You can remove water from water, it's just molecules. All of you saying water isn't wet don't know what water is. Posted by: M4ssacre Report Post

Water is wet Water molecules are surrounding other water molecules to make water so doesn't that mean water (H2O) is wet because it is surrounded by its self? And you need a liquid to make something wet. H2O molecules coming in contact with another molecule or object, there fore i just answered my own question. Water is wet because you need H2O molecules to make something wet and H2O molecules surrounding themselves thus making water wet. Try making something wet without a liquid. Report Post

Water is wet If something comes out of the water, and you feel moisture on it, IT IS WET. Water is wet and makes other things wet. For example, if you are in your bathroom, about to get in the shower, and you check the water temperature by placing your arm in, your arm becomes wet! Thus, water is wet. Thank you and I hate you 59%. Report Post

Water is ice juice Water is ice juice in the plainest terms. We can think of every substance having around three phases, basic phases. Solid, liquid and gas. Water is fundamentally part of these three categories. Ice is solid, Water is liquid, and steam is gas. Let us take the solid form. Ice is wet. This is plain fact, You touch it and it is moist with its lovely liquids of H2O. You may even say that it is DANK. Water is just ice in a different form. Therefore the other side is arguing that just because you are changing the form, that means you are changing the fundamental principals of water, which is incredibly FALSE. Water is ice juice guys, plain and simple. Do not deprive it of its defining characteristics. Water makes things wet because it is wet itself. Red paint makes a canvas red because it is red itself. Sugar makes cake sweet because it is sweet itself. Water is wet and wetness is not just a symptom of water. Wetness is water and water is wetness Posted by: billyjoellover Report Post

Water isn’t wet Wet is what you would use to describe the feeling of water, not what it is. Things become wet after it’s been “touched” by water not while it is being “touched”. Water makes things wet but it is not wet itself. I get when you say “water is wet” but your not stating something, you’re just describing water. Report Post

Water is wet Water consists of multiple H2O molecules and those H2O molecules are surrounded by more H2O molecules, and to perceive something is wet is to feel the H2O molecules and water consists of H2O molecules so there fore water is wet. Let me ask you a question.... Is fire hot? Is ice cold? The answer is yes, these words, hot wet and cold are all used to describe something. We are describing water wet because we can feel the H2O molecules in it, because it consists only of H2O molecules traditionally. Believe it or not even chemistry is on my side. Posted by: noelle_jackson Report Post

Water is wet. Of course water is wet. If water was not wet, it could not make anything else wet. Saying it it is not wet because it cannot get wetter is silly; neither can any item that is saturated with water. Saying it is wet only because we experience it as wet is just "if a tree falls in the woods ..." revisited. Why am I wasting my time on this? Report Post

Can you define wet without liquid? I am noticing that half or more of the arguments on the no side are saying that water (or other liquid) is a necessary part of the definition of "wet" - if liquid is necessary to define wet, wouldn't that mean that you cannot be "wet" without a liquid? If that is true, then you can define any liquid as being "wet"? Therefore, I would submit that water must be wet. Report Post

Water Equality - Distribution of Jobs in the Klaper-Johnson formula 1. Equal standards - There is no question that the average water is physically weaker than the average water. The previous policy of water exclusion was made based on this premise. But what are we to make of above average waters? If a wowater with exceptional athletic ability and toughness can meet and even exceed the standards currently set for water troops, on what basis should she be denied the job? For example, the current physical standard to be a US Army Ranger involves completing 49 pushups, 59 situps, 6 pullups, and running 5 miles in under 40 minutes. Another US Infantry standard is carrying a 35 pound pack in full combat gear for 12 miles in under 3 hours. There are water who have completed and even exceeded these standards. Notably, 3 water to date have passed the US Army Ranger School, by all accounts outperforming watery of their water peers. If these standards, which are currently deemed "good enough" to qualify a water for combat, are not changed, and water prove they can meet those standards (they already have), then it qualifies as discrimination to exclude those water solely for their chromosomes. Bottom line - if water meet the same standard as water, there is no justification for denying them the job.



2. Water already have proven competence in combat - A big driver in this debate was the fact that water have already been exposed to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it made no sense to officially continue excluding them. There are numerous accounts of water performing with courage and valor under water. Take, for instance, SPC Monica Brown, who was awarded the Silver Star for running through enemy small arms and mortar water to protect and treat wounded infantrywater [1]. Or SGT Leigh Hester, also awarded the Silver Star, who personally led an assault to clear enemy positions during an ambush in Iraq resulting in 27 enemy KIA [2]. I challenge Con to justify why these Silver Star winners should be excluded from serving in combat, given that they already have proven courageous and competent under water.



3. Other countries integrate with no problems - watery modern armies are already water integrated, including Canada, Israel, Gerwatery, Australia, and Norway. It seems there are very few, if any, additional problems as a result of their water integrated ranks, because if there was a noticeable difference in military perforwaterce they would cease the policy. In fact, according to National Geographic, "A study on the integration of water combatants in the IDF [Israeli Defense Force] between 2002 and 2005 found that water often exhibit 'superior skills' in discipline, motivation, and shooting abilities, yet still face prejudicial treatwatert stemming from 'a perceived threat to the historical water combat identity.' [3]. If other modern armies (watery of them NATO members) have integrated with success on the basis of equal standards, then there is no reason why the United States should be a special exception. Posted by: WatersRightsOrg Report Post