Is water wet? This is one of the most talked about question in the 21st century. The argument is pretty simple you either think water is or isn’t wet, you can argue both sides but one side has the better argument. When arguing that water is wet you can bring up scientific facts and definitions. When I asked people why water isn’t wet they never brought up definitions they were basing their argument off how they felt when they were in water and then said that you aren’t wet when you are in water. One universal definition when researching the topic that every site had was being “covered, soaked, or surrounded by a liquid.”  This making that argument invalid, now let us see why water is wet.

This debate between water being wet and not being wet will never truly end because you can’t change half of the world’s population mind, it is physically impossible. You can change a few peoples mind on the debate. By definition on Merriam Webster dictionary, it is “consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid” so when people say something is wet they usually say you can get wet when water is “covering” or “soaked” with a liquid so why wouldn’t water be wet. If one water molecule is “soaking” or “covering” another water molecule would that not make water wet? When talking to people on the topic they bring up how when you are swimming and submerged in water you are not wet until you come out because you don’t feel it and you feel normal while in water and it’s not until you get out that you feel wet. But, when you are in the pool you are in fact submerged and surrounded by water which by definition makes you wet right then.

When talking about things we tend to listen to the most credible people we know, right? Well, according to which chemist Richard Saykally water is, in fact, wet because of strong tetrahedral bonds. Yes, I know what you are thinking, “what the heck is strong tetrah... whatever he just said” let me tell you, it is when each water molecule is able to make two hydrogen bonds that involve their hydrogen atoms and two more further hydrogen bonds using the hydrogen atoms attached to neighboring water molecules. When a water molecule comes into contact with another molecule it makes that other molecule wet, right? It is the same concept for strong tetrahedral bonding when one water molecule comes into contact with another it forms the tetrahedral bond this making water wet. People will also bring up that fire is not burning which is not correct, it is the same concept that when a water molecule making something wet as when the molecules that make fire are touching each other they are constantly burning each other. We can’t see this process I know but just like a lot of processes in science and nature, we can’t see they do actually happen.

Let me ask you a very easy yet, may seem like it’s a useless question. Is water a liquid? Obviously, the answer is yes the definition of a liquid is a substance that flows freely and is of consistent volume which water is exactly that. I6f you look up the definition of “wet” on the website dictionary you come to find that it means “in a liquid form or state” so if water is a liquid then that means it is in a liquid form or state which is the exact definition given to us. When arguing I wanted to bring in facts and not just bias opinions so I went to many sites to find multiple facts to help support and back this side of the argument up. If the definition states that wet is something “in a liquid form or state” why wouldn’t we consider water wet because after all science says water is a liquid and by definition wet is an adjective that describes water.  Wet can only be used as an adjective to describe the state a liquid is in and to describe what something feels or is like, like red is an adjective for a stop sign wet is an adjective for water. An adjective describes something like green describes grass so that means grass is green so in the same sense that wet is an adjective to describe water that means water is wet.

Now there are two sides to every argument now let’s see what the argument from the other side is. The other side believes that water is a liquid that gets things wet but in and of itself cannot itself be wet. Now once you come into contact with water you are now wet. They also think wetness is a description of when something experiences water. Their main argument is that water in itself is not wet, but it can get things and objects wet and it is the state of getting water on you that makes things wet and it cannot get itself wet. All fluids could be said to be wet if wetness was a result of the sensation caused by the movement of a fluid over the skin. Have you ever noticed that you can't feel the wetness of water if you hold your hand perfectly still while it is underwater, or that a drop of water on the skin doesn't feel wet? It is said to be this way because wetness is a description of our experiences with water.

I know all this still won’t change some people’s mind but I am hoping that this brought some people from the dark side to the good side. Between giving the definition from Merriam webster about something being covered or soaked in a liquid makes it wet and giving an explanation. Telling why the other sides argument is not valid backed up by facts and definitions. Also, by bringing in the scientific term of strong tetrahedral bonding and how when two water molecules are together it makes water wet and bringing in an opinion of a chemist who studies that kind of things. Finally, the definition that comes from definition that wet is described as being in a liquid form or state. This is enough evidence to prove that water is wet, there is much more evidence that proves this theory right but there was too much to put down onto this essay. I chose what I felt were the three strongest points I could find to use in this paper and to help prove my point to be correct and try to convince and change some people's mind on the topic and see if they would join this side. So let's ask the question again is water wet?