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: aec96ee6b56cc6664c2d9185e4748f326e7b6112c36acfc54d8e1ba2d33b3956 transcript_hash: aec96ee6b56cc6664c2d9185e4748f326e7b6112c36acfc54d8e1ba2d33b3956 content_uri: sha256://aec96ee6b56cc6664c2d9185e4748f326e7b6112c36acfc54d8e1ba2d33b3956
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.
A hotdog is most commonly understood in ordinary usage as its own distinct food category, not a sandwich. While it shares a structural similarity (a filling between bread), the cultural, culinary, and commercial conventions consistently treat it separately. Common food taxonomies — including restaurant menus, grocery store categorization, and culinary traditions — place hotdogs in the 'hotdog' or 'sausage' category, not under sandwiches. The bun structure of a hotdog is typically a single connected piece of bread hinged on one side, which differs from the classic sandwich construction of two separate slices of bread encasing a filling. This structural distinction is frequently cited as a reason to treat it as a separate category. In ordinary language, people do not typically refer to a hotdog as a sandwich. Describing a hotdog as a sandwich would be considered unusual or pedantic in everyday conversation. While some food definitional frameworks (e.g., the USDA's broad sandwich definition) could technically include hotdogs, the resolution criteria emphasize common usage and ordinary food definitions, which clearly favor a separate category.
A hotdog is almost universally described and categorized in common usage as a 'hotdog,' not a sandwich. While it technically shares some structural overlap with a sandwich (a filling between bread), ordinary language and food taxonomy treat it as its own distinct category. In common usage, menus, grocery stores, and culinary traditions consistently classify hotdogs separately from sandwiches. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance notably ruled that hotdogs are sandwiches for tax purposes, but this is an outlier legal/tax classification rather than a reflection of ordinary food usage. The hotdog bun is typically a single hinged piece of bread rather than two separate slices, which further distinguishes it structurally from the prototypical sandwich. The resolution criteria specifically asks whether a hotdog fits the *ordinary* food definition of a sandwich. By that standard — common usage, typical food taxonomy, and how the item is normally described — a hotdog is generally understood to belong to its own category.
In ordinary common usage, a hotdog is not called a sandwich. People order hotdogs as hotdogs, not as sandwiches, and they appear in their own menu and food category distinct from sandwiches. Structurally, a hotdog uses a hinged, split bun rather than two fully separate bread slices, which distinguishes it from the canonical sandwich form. This structural difference is recognized by food taxonomists and culinary authorities. Food institutions treat hotdogs as a separate category: the National Hot Dog and Sausage Council explicitly states that a hotdog is not a sandwich, and it has its own dedicated food industry classifications. While some broad technical definitions of 'sandwich' (e.g., the USDA's) could technically encompass a hotdog, the resolution criteria specifically calls for the *ordinary* food definition and how the item is *normally described*. By that standard, a hotdog is treated as its own distinct food item. Common cultural and linguistic usage — the strongest signal under these resolution criteria — overwhelmingly treats 'hotdog' and 'sandwich' as separate categories, even if edge-case philosophical arguments exist for overlap.
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 aec9…3956
Redeem on the market page →This record is final and content-addressed. corpus … · prompt 35c5b3…1dba68 · model claude-sonnet-4-6