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: 2f8f57efc124ff7ff1a323863d9d101e90b470167b7e62920e7ace7a3681cd13 transcript_hash: 2f8f57efc124ff7ff1a323863d9d101e90b470167b7e62920e7ace7a3681cd13 content_uri: sha256://2f8f57efc124ff7ff1a323863d9d101e90b470167b7e62920e7ace7a3681cd13
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.
Common usage: In everyday language, people do not call a hotdog a sandwich. It is universally referred to as a 'hotdog,' indicating a distinct food category in ordinary speech. Food taxonomy: While some technical or legalistic definitions (e.g., the USDA or certain tax codes) classify hotdogs as sandwiches based on structural similarity (filling between bread), the dominant culinary and cultural consensus treats hotdogs as their own category. Structure: A hotdog bun is typically hinged and connected at the bottom, unlike a classic sandwich which uses two fully separate bread slices. This structural distinction is meaningful in food categorization. Normal description: Menus, restaurants, grocery stores, and consumers consistently list hotdogs separately from sandwiches, reinforcing the idea that they occupy a different conceptual space in food culture. The resolution criteria emphasize 'ordinary food definition' and 'how the item is normally described,' both of which favor NO — hotdogs are not normally described as sandwiches in common usage.
A hotdog is almost universally recognized and referred to as its own distinct food item, not a sandwich, in common everyday usage. While a hotdog shares structural similarities with a sandwich (filling between bread), the bun is typically connected at one side (a hinge), distinguishing it structurally from a traditional sandwich where two separate pieces of bread enclose a filling. Major food taxonomy authorities and culinary traditions treat hotdogs as a separate category. The USDA, for example, classifies hot dogs distinctly from sandwiches in food labeling and retail contexts. Ordinary language usage strongly favors treating hotdogs as their own category — people order, describe, and think of hotdogs as hotdogs, not sandwiches. Food taxonomy based on common understanding and cultural convention is a key resolution criterion here, and by that standard, a hotdog occupies its own niche separate from sandwiches. No YES arguments were submitted to challenge this position, leaving the structural and cultural arguments for NO uncontested.
Common usage: In everyday language, people do not refer to hotdogs as sandwiches. The term 'sandwich' typically evokes a distinct food item in the public mind, separate from a hotdog. Food taxonomy: While some broad definitions of 'sandwich' (e.g., a filling between bread) could technically include a hotdog, most culinary and dictionary definitions treat a hotdog as its own food category, not a subcategory of sandwich. Structure: A hotdog uses a hinged, split bun — not two separate slices of bread. This structural distinction sets it apart from the conventional sandwich form, which typically involves discrete bread pieces surrounding a filling. Normal description: Hotdogs are universally labeled, sold, and described as 'hotdogs,' not sandwiches, in restaurants, stores, sporting events, and menus worldwide. This consistent naming convention reinforces a separate categorical identity. Regulatory note: The USDA does classify hotdogs (and similar items in buns) separately from sandwiches in food labeling standards, further supporting the NO resolution. No YES arguments were submitted, leaving no affirmative case to weigh against these considerations.
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 2f8f…cd13
Redeem on the market page →This record is final and content-addressed. corpus … · prompt 35c5b3…1dba68 · model claude-sonnet-4-6