The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

On the Questionably Sandwich Nature of the Hotdog

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2017 Category: Funny
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 487 times Debate No: 105903
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Very serious debate, paramount topic: Is a Hotdog properly called a sandwich or not?

Con will arrive at the resolution that a Hotdog is not properly called a sandwich.

The definition of a sandwich, according to the Google Dictionary:
noun: sandwich; plural noun: sandwiches
an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with meat, cheese, or other filling between them, eaten as a light meal.
"a ham sandwich"
something that is constructed like or has the form of a sandwich.

verb: sandwich; 3rd person present: sandwiches; past tense: sandwiched; past participle: sandwiched; gerund or present participle: sandwiching
insert or squeeze (someone or something) between two other people or things, typically in a restricted space or so as to be uncomfortable.
"the girl was sandwiched between two burly men in the back of the car"

Con will present the first argument.


This an interesting topic and I commend you for your creativity in coming up with it. First off let us see what exactly a hotdog is:
hot dog
G2;h"(d) G6;d"ɡ/Submit
a frankfurter, especially one served hot in a long, soft roll and topped with various condiments.
Some important things to note in this definition:
First, the frankfurter or the meat is served in "a" soft roll, notably singular. This directly contradicts the definition of a sandwich as a sandwich consists of "two pieces of bread". So according to the definition that you provided, since a hot dog has only one piece of bread, it is not a sandwich.
Secondly, condiments are used differently in a sandwich than how they are used with a hot dog. In a sandwich the filling, condiments, or parts other than the meat are "between" the breads, while in a hot dog the condiments top the hot dog. This further shows the differences between a hot dog and a sandwich.
Debate Round No. 1


An interesting argument from definition, though false.

What is the distinction, I ask, between a roll and a loaf? It is the distinction between genus and species, I say. This is the fourth Google definiton of a roll: a very small loaf of bread, to be eaten by one person. Therefore, a single roll is a single loaf.

Now then, I direct attention to the specific wording of the sandwich's given definition. It is said to consist of "two pieces of bread," the key word here being: piece. By saying that the contents of a sandwich are contained by two pieces of bread, one allows for the two pieces to be parts of the same loaf. Therefore in the same way that a sandwich can have it's contents contained by two parts of the same loaf of bread, a hotdog has it's contents contained by two parts of the same loaf: the roll.

The logical objection to this, however, is that there is a distinction between the two instances of containment because in a sandwich such as a hamburger, the two parts of the bread are separated, whereas in the case of sandwiches such as the hotdog, the two parts of the bread are conjoined. I respond by saying that it makes no difference whether the two parts of the loaf are conjoined or separated, appealing the the verbal sense of the word "sandwich." The fact that in common use, the verb "to sandwich," means to lodge something stationarily, reflects that the real defining aspect of a sandwich is simply that the contents are contained by bread. As long as the housing for the content is bread, and the content is "sandwiched" within the bread, the thing is properly called a sandwich.

I must draw attention also, to the fact, as noted by the brilliant Kreuger515 in the comments, that if one should take issue with the parts of the bread being conjoined around the hotdog, they must necessarily disbar the subway sandwich, a staple of sandwich culture, along with the hotdog. Which is of course absurd.

Therefore in conclusion, because the hotdog itself is properly "sandwiched" within bread, it deserves to be called a sandwich.


It seems that the meat of your argument(see what i did there) is that the piece talked about in the definition you provided does not necessitate a separation but rather it must just be a part of something, which in this case you claim to be the loaf. I find it interesting though that you have made an argument based on a word without actually defining the word. So let us look at the definition of piece:

a portion of an object or of material, produced by cutting, tearing, or breaking the whole.
assemble something from individual parts.

The implication from the noun seems to heavily imply a separation as the imagery of breaking, tearing, and cutting are all forms of separation. But this is not enough proof, as it could be argued that a part could be cut, torn, or broken off without necessarily separating. It is instead from the verb that we can get a more formed sense of the word. To piece something together or to assemble from pieces notably can only be done with "individual" parts. The use of the word individual shows that the parts with which you piece or, as the nominative, pieces are in fact discreet quantities, or separate. So with this new insight that the verb provides, the pieces which are talked about in the definition of a sandwich you provided are in fact separate breads.
As for the argument of subs still being sandwiches, it seems that the logical consequence of the breads being separate must indeed be that subs are not sandwiches, but that they are mislabeled by their makers, according of course to the definition of a sandwich you provided.
Debate Round No. 2


You make a good point, however, still miserably mislead.

You were right to name a piece as "individual," that it must necessarily be. In order for something to be considered a piece, it must be a part, individual from the whole as well as a remainder. Simply, to be individual a piece must be not discrete, but distinct.

Pieces of bread as quantity, can be either continuous or discrete quantity. That is to say, the parts may share boundaries, or may be separate. So then, the two halves of the hotdog, which are distinguished by the thin conjoining part are by all means individual pieces, despite being conjoined.

The validity of this conclusion is reinforced by the utter absurdity that one is forced to accept by the conclusions denial: that a subway sandwich is no sandwich at all. The subway sandwich is perhaps the most iconic and most staple sandwich in American society (besides the hot-dog and hamburger of course), and to deny it's status as a sandwich is near sacrilege.

My hope is that one day the American people will recognize the Hotdog with that same respect it deserves.


It seems that again you have made the fatal mistake of centering your argument around a term without fully understanding it. This time you are saying that the piece is indeed something that is individual, but that the word individual does not imply discrete quantity or something that is separate, but simply that it is distinct. So let us again look to the terms and the definition of individual:

single; separate.

Here the argument presents itself. Individual is indeed discrete and is a separate quantity as that is the definition of the word. So your argument claiming that the word individual could be continuous is clearly disproved by the word whose definition claims the opposite.

The next argument where you use the authority of common phrasing does not really hold here as we are making arguments based on definitions and what the words actually mean and specifically the definition you provided. According to the logical consequence of your definition, a sub is not a sandwich, and people are wrong to call it one, if they at the same time treat the dictionary as a legitimate source of defining a thing.

My hope is that one day the American people fully understand the terms they use and what is meant by them so that they can distinguish the hot dog as a revolutionary, individual delicacy and give it the proper, distinct respect it deserves.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Flatstanley 7 months ago
I think you are assuming genders I"m 12
Posted by Perussi 7 months ago
All squares are rectanges but not all rectangles are squares.
Posted by Masterful 7 months ago
No a hotdog is a type of roll.
Posted by Throwback 7 months ago
Awesome debate. Thank you to both participants!
Posted by Krueger515 7 months ago
Is a sub sandwich a sandwich? If a hot dog isn't a sandwich, is a meatball sub a sandwich?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Throwback 7 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both pro and con exhibited exemplary conduct, spelling and grammar. Although both were short on sourcing, the thoughts were well developed without them. I came into this review convinced a hot dog is not a proper sandwich. My world view is shaken, I now lean toward Pro's position after the debate. I find Pro's contention a bun sliced open yet remaining hinged or joined is a loaf of bread consisting of 2 joined slices compelling. Con made a good effort to refute it, but the facts were against him. Well done by both parties!