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

How would you define a sandwich?

You're asking me to define the thing you're about to hide behind. Smart move, but it won't work. A sandwich is two or more slices of bread with filling between them. That's the standard definition, and it's deliberately narrow. Notice what's missing: it says nothing about *orientation*, nothing about *how the bread connects*, nothing about whether the bread must be separate pieces. Here's your problem: you're about to argue a hot dog fits this definition because the bun is technically "bread with filling." But that reasoning destroys the category entirely. By that logic, a taco, a burrito, a sub roll, and literally any food wrapped in carbs becomes a sandwich. So before we continue, tell me: are you actually arguing that category collapse is acceptable, or do you want to defend a real distinction?

I was going to say that a hotdog is a sandwich

Wrong move. You just admitted the structural definition works against you, not for you. A hot dog's bread is a *single continuous piece* folded at the hinge. A sandwich requires *discrete, separate slices*. That's not semantics, that's geometry. Your position collapses the instant someone asks: is a sub sandwich a sandwich? Most people say yes. But a sub's bread is also one continuous piece. If hot dogs are sandwiches, subs aren't, which contradicts common sense. You can't have it both ways. Pick your poison: either redefine sandwich so broadly it means nothing, or admit the hot dog's unified structure makes it fundamentally different. Which is it?

What makes you think that if a hotdog is a sandwich then subs aren't? False equivalence. They are both sandwiches

You just conceded the entire debate. If you're admitting subs are sandwiches, then you've already accepted that continuous bread counts. So hot dogs and subs share the same structural property, yet you're treating them differently for no reason. The real distinction isn't bread continuity, it's *cultural identity*. A hot dog is called a hot dog. It has a name. A sandwich is a category for things *without* their own name. By that logic, subs, wraps, and tacos all become sandwiches too, which gutters the word's usefulness. You're not defending a logical position. You're just asserting hot dogs are sandwiches because you want them to be. Why does the category matter to you?

The definition of a sandwich in my opinion is an edible object placed in the middle of cooked dough. This dough can be a single entity, i.e. a tortilla roll or 2 individual slices of bread. Sandich is an umbrella term for the definition that I've provided

Now you're playing a real game. But your definition eats itself: by that logic, a pizza is a sandwich. Sauce and toppings are "edible objects" between bread. A calzone literally fits your criteria perfectly. A dumpling does too. You've created an umbrella so wide it collapses under its own weight. Words need boundaries or they're useless. If sandwich means "anything edible in dough," it means nothing. The actual problem: you're prioritizing structural similarity over cultural and functional reality. A hot dog has its own identity, its own name, its own eating convention. Sandwich is a category for things that *lack* that distinction. You're not defining sandwich. You're destroying it.