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 16, 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: c5f7f3f8f144f7aacf85d91b901c7bc5ce9168a6d41eb7c2137b6d34f879d8b7 transcript_hash: c5f7f3f8f144f7aacf85d91b901c7bc5ce9168a6d41eb7c2137b6d34f879d8b7 content_uri: sha256://c5f7f3f8f144f7aacf85d91b901c7bc5ce9168a6d41eb7c2137b6d34f879d8b7
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.
No arguments were submitted on either side, so the verdict defaults to common classification conventions. A hotdog is most commonly recognized as its own distinct food category rather than a sandwich, despite sharing structural similarities (filling between bread). Culinary tradition, cultural consensus, and most food classification frameworks treat the hotdog as a separate category. The bun is hinged rather than two separate slices, which many definitions use to distinguish sandwiches. In the absence of compelling YES arguments, the default NO resolution is appropriate given the resolution criteria asks whether a hotdog is *best* classified as a sandwich — a bar that is not clearly met.
No arguments were submitted for either side, so the verdict defaults to general reasoning about the question itself. The classification of a hotdog as a sandwich is a well-known debated topic. While a hotdog shares structural similarities with a sandwich (filling between bread), the predominant culinary and cultural consensus treats the hotdog as its own distinct food category. The hotdog's bun is typically hinged and not fully separated into two pieces, distinguishing it structurally from a classic sandwich. Major food classification bodies and culinary traditions generally do not classify a hotdog as a sandwich. For example, the USDA and most dictionaries treat them as separate categories. In the absence of any submitted arguments to shift the default, the most defensible resolution is NO — a hotdog is not best classified as a sandwich.
No arguments were submitted on either side, so the verdict defaults to the most widely accepted conventional classification. A hotdog is commonly considered its own distinct food category. While some definitions of 'sandwich' (e.g., two pieces of bread with a filling) could technically include a hotdog, the predominant culinary and cultural consensus does not classify a hotdog as a sandwich. Major food classification bodies and common usage treat the hotdog as a separate category, distinct from sandwiches. In the absence of compelling YES arguments, the default common-sense classification resolves this NO.
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 c5f7…d8b7
Redeem on the market page →This record is final and content-addressed. corpus … · prompt 35c5b3…1dba68 · model claude-sonnet-4-6