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: c41e63b766489a58b64df5e750a9bc1d991e329c9c9f1b462bfc70acefcee903 transcript_hash: c41e63b766489a58b64df5e750a9bc1d991e329c9c9f1b462bfc70acefcee903 content_uri: sha256://c41e63b766489a58b64df5e750a9bc1d991e329c9c9f1b462bfc70acefcee903
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.
In ordinary, everyday usage, a hotdog is not called a sandwich. When people say 'I want a sandwich,' a hotdog is not what comes to mind, and menus, restaurants, and food establishments categorically distinguish hotdogs from sandwiches. Structurally, a hotdog uses a hinged, split bun rather than two fully separate pieces of bread. This distinguishes it from the prototypical sandwich structure (two discrete bread slices enclosing a filling), aligning it more closely with items like submarine rolls or hoagies — and even those edge cases are debated. Food taxonomy and industry standards matter here. The USDA and many food regulatory bodies treat hotdogs as a distinct category (sausage products served in a bun), separate from sandwiches. The New York State Tax Tribunal notably ruled that a hotdog IS a sandwich for tax purposes, but this is a legal/administrative edge case, not common culinary usage. Culturally and linguistically, hotdogs have their own well-established identity as a separate food category. Calling a hotdog a sandwich would be seen as a philosophical gotcha rather than a genuine description of how the food is understood and used in practice. The resolution criteria specifically weight 'ordinary food definition,' 'common usage,' and 'how the item is normally described' — all of which favor NO. The hotdog's unique bun structure, cultural identity, and categorical separation in menus and food taxonomy place it outside the ordinary sandwich definition.
Common usage: In everyday language, people do not refer to a hotdog as a sandwich. The word 'sandwich' conjures a distinct mental category, and 'hotdog' is universally treated as its own food item. Ordinary speakers would find it odd or pedantic to call a hotdog a sandwich. Food taxonomy and industry classification: Major food classification systems (e.g., the USDA, restaurant menus, grocery store layouts) treat hotdogs as a separate category from sandwiches. The National Hot Dog and Sausage Council itself has stated that a hotdog is not a sandwich. Structural argument (the strongest YES-leaning point): A hotdog does share structural similarities with a sandwich — protein filling inside bread. Under a purely structural or broad legal definition (e.g., the infamous 2006 White City Shopping Center v. PR Restaurants ruling in Massachusetts), a hotdog could qualify. However, this legalistic framing does not reflect ordinary food usage, which is the stated resolution criterion. Hinged bun distinction: A hotdog bun is typically connected at the base, forming a single hinged piece of bread rather than two separate slices. This structural difference further distinguishes it from the prototypical sandwich form. Resolution criterion prioritizes ordinary usage: The market explicitly instructs evaluation based on 'common usage' and 'how the item is normally described.' By that standard, a hotdog is consistently described and understood as its own food category, not a sandwich.
A hotdog is commonly understood as its own distinct food category in everyday language and culinary tradition, not a sandwich. While a hotdog technically involves a filling placed inside bread, the bread used (a hinged, partially split bun) differs structurally from traditional sandwich bread — it is typically connected at the base rather than consisting of two fully separate slices. Common usage and popular food taxonomy consistently treat hotdogs as a separate category from sandwiches. When people say 'sandwich,' they do not ordinarily mean a hotdog, and vice versa. Major food institutions and culinary traditions maintain separate classifications for hotdogs and sandwiches, reinforcing that ordinary usage does not group them together. The resolution criteria specifically asks whether a hotdog fits the *ordinary food definition* of a sandwich and how it is *normally described*. Normally, a hotdog is described as a hotdog — not a sandwich — which supports a NO resolution. Although some broad structural definitions of 'sandwich' (e.g., 'filling between bread') could technically encompass hotdogs, the resolution criteria weight common usage and normal description heavily, both of which favor treating a hotdog as its own category.
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 c41e…e903
Redeem on the market page →This record is final and content-addressed. corpus … · prompt 35c5b3…1dba68 · model claude-sonnet-4-6