DebateWire
Loading docket
Record
Loading Record
The complete deliberation, published verbatim — the immutable system prompt, the frozen corpus and its injection screen, every blind assessment, all 3 independent runs including the dissent, and the validation behind every citation. Nothing the bench saw or produced is withheld.
Phase 01
The corpus queued on Jun 15, 2026 and its hash was committed on-chain — what follows is provably what the bench read. The protocol ran in four phases: an injection screen over every submission, a blind assessment of each argument, 3 independent deliberation runs with majority rule, then citation and validation. Anyone can re-run this record against the pinned snapshot and compare.
Phase 02
Written and committed at market creation — before a single argument was filed. The operator cannot steer a verdict by editing instructions after the fact; this hash is the one on-chain.
Published prompt text is not present in the transcript chunk payload. record_core_hash: 311027030d1b9c1fed6ba69c073ac103396265059d27de053e1b9d2b5f3f42b9 transcript_hash: 311027030d1b9c1fed6ba69c073ac103396265059d27de053e1b9d2b5f3f42b9 content_uri: sha256://311027030d1b9c1fed6ba69c073ac103396265059d27de053e1b9d2b5f3f42b9
Phase 03
0 arguments entered the sealed brief — 0 YES, 0 NO. Every submission passed through the injection screen first: argument text is untrusted evidence, never instruction, and submissions that address the bench are excluded from the brief.
Each submission below replays its full audit — the intake, screening, dedup, auditor decision, citation check, and inclusion. For an argument excluded under the integrity policy, only the public reason and rule id are shown; the detection mechanism is never disclosed.
Phase 04
Phase A of the protocol: every argument scored on relevance, evidence, and logic before the bench sees side totals — so volume carries no weight and each argument stands alone.
Phase 05
3 independent runs, each in a fresh context, blind to the others — the majority rules.
from a classic sandwich where two separate pieces of bread enclose a filling. This structural distinction reinforces its separate categorization.", "Major culinary institutions, style guides (e.g., Merriam-Webster's sandwich definition requires 'two or more slices of bread'), and everyday language usage consistently treat hotdogs as their own category, separate from sandwiches.", "No affirmative arguments were submitted in favor of YES, and the resolution criteria explicitly asks whether a hotdog should be classified under 'ordinary culinary and language usage' — where the consensus clearly places it in its own distinct category."], "decisive_argument_ids": []}
While a hotdog shares structural similarities with a sandwich (filling between bread), ordinary culinary and linguistic usage treats it as its own distinct category. Most dictionaries and food classification systems (e.g., the USDA, culinary tradition) distinguish hotdogs from sandwiches. The hotdog's hinged bun, cultural identity, and dedicated category in menus, restaurants, and everyday speech all support treating it as a separate item. The popular cultural consensus — reinforced by phrases like 'sandwich OR hotdog' used as contrasting categories — strongly suggests they are not the same thing under ordinary usage. No arguments were submitted on either side, so the verdict rests on general culinary and linguistic convention, which favors the hotdog as its own category.
Under ordinary culinary and language usage, a 'sandwich' typically refers to fillings placed between two separate, distinct slices of bread. A hotdog bun is a single, hinged piece of bread that is not fully separated, which distinguishes it structurally from a classic sandwich. Common cultural and linguistic convention treats 'hotdog' as its own distinct food category. Menus, dictionaries, and everyday speech consistently separate hotdogs from sandwiches, suggesting they occupy a different conceptual space in ordinary usage. Major culinary and food-classification bodies (e.g., the USDA) have at times classified hotdogs as sandwiches for regulatory purposes, which shows some definitional overlap. However, this technical or regulatory classification does not reflect 'ordinary' usage, which is what the resolution criteria require. The resolution criteria explicitly ask about 'ordinary culinary and language usage,' and in that ordinary context, most people would not call a hotdog a sandwich. The hotdog is widely understood as its own iconic food category with its own distinct identity, preparation traditions, and cultural associations.
Phase 06
Factual claims extracted from the briefs and checked against primary sources before deliberation. Unverifiable claims are weighed as rhetoric, not evidence.
Phase 07
Winner: NO. Confidence: 1.
payouts unlocked · tx 3110…42b9
Redeem on the market page →This record is final and content-addressed. corpus … · prompt 35c5b3…1dba68 · model claude-sonnet-4-6