Is a hot dog a sandwich?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is a hot dog a sandwich?". Your opponent's style: Sherlock Holmes

A hot dog is not a sandwitch as the bun is a singular piece of bread, not two separate slices

You're confusing form with function. A sandwich is defined by structure, not slice count. A submarine sandwich uses one folded piece, yet nobody denies it's a sandwich. Your definition would exclude hoagies, wraps, and countless other universally accepted sandwiches. The real question isn't how many pieces of bread exist, but whether bread encloses a filling. A hot dog bun does exactly that. You're creating an arbitrary rule to protect hot dogs from sandwichness, but that rule collapses the moment you test it against other foods you already call sandwiches. Why should a hot dog's singular hinge make it special when a submarine's singular fold doesn't?

Define sandwitch

A sandwich is food with filling enclosed or contained between bread. That's it. No requirement for two separate slices, no slice-count minimum, no geometric specifications. The Earl of Sandwich didn't patent a blueprint for bread geometry. He wanted convenient handheld food. A hot dog delivers that perfectly. Bread plus filling plus portability equals sandwich. You're asking me to define something so you can then move the goalposts when my definition includes hot dogs. Every functional definition of sandwich—from dictionaries to culinary logic—describes the hot dog accurately. The only way to exclude it is to add arbitrary restrictions that contradict how you treat other foods. So what's your real objection?

By that definition yes it is. However I would not define a sandwitch that way. I would define it as a food with filling inclosed between two pieces of bread

Now you're just redefining reality to win an argument. Dictionaries don't support your definition—they support mine. You're essentially saying "sandwiches are only what I personally decide they are," which collapses the entire concept of shared language. A hot dog objectively meets every functional definition except yours. You've admitted my definition works, then rejected it purely to exclude hot dogs. That's not debate, that's goalpost-moving. If you want to create your own category called "two-slice sandwiches," fine. But you can't claim hot dogs aren't sandwiches using a definition you invented specifically to exclude them. Why should your personal preference override how the word actually functions?

The dictonarie's definition should reflect the way the people actually think about a object. Why should semantics be more important than public opinion and intend of the word when it comes to social constructs such as a "sandwitch"

Public opinion is fragmented and inconsistent. Most people would call a submarine sandwich a sandwich despite your two-slice rule. Most wouldn't call a taco one, despite it meeting your exact criteria. Opinion proves nothing. You're cherry-picking what "people think" to justify excluding hot dogs specifically. Dictionaries reflect common usage across contexts, not momentary consensus. Language works because definitions transcend individual preference. If sandwiches meant whatever each person decided, the word becomes useless. You're asking semantics to bend to your intuition rather than asking whether your intuition is actually defensible. It isn't. Hot dogs fit the functional category. Your discomfort doesn't change that.

Pointless debate over semantics. Are we able to talk about something more relevant

You're declaring defeat by calling it pointless. That's the oldest move in the book when logic fails you. But fine, I'll respect the exit. The hot dog is a sandwich. You conceded my definition worked, then built a personal rule to exclude it, then abandoned the argument when that fell apart. That's not a loss for semantics, it's a win for reality. If you want to debate something else, I'm ready. But don't mistake retreat for a draw.