Hot dogs richly deserve to be inducted into same family as BLTs, PBJs
Hot dogs, sandwiches, cannot ever be considered same as one another
Merriam-Webster defines a sandwich thusly: “an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with meat, cheese, or other filling between them, eaten as a light meal.”
The keywords of that definition, and the basis upon which I will rest my argument are the integral two pieces of bread necessary for a sandwich to be a sandwich. There should not be any disagreement on the fact that, unless you have made some egregious errors in preparation, any good hot dog should consist of one piece of bread, a split roll to be exact, encasing your choice of meat and condiments. This is not simple semantics, it is the basic facts of the issue.
While a hotly contested school of thought in most other fields, I believe applying Aristotle’s Essentialist philosophyㅡthe view that all things have a set of attributes or an essence without which it would not be the same kind of thing with the same kind of identityㅡto a debate on gastronomical definitions such as this is not going too far.
The simple fact then is that the essence of a sandwich is its structure. It requires the careful alternation of two or more pieces of bread and filling of your choosing. A hot dog does not alternate, a hot dog encases, it absorbs. A hot dog and a sandwich do not share the same essence of structure, experience, or appearance and therefore can never share the same identity and function; they are just not the same thing.
If that is not enough, a court case in 2006 in Boston, Massachusetts ruled officially that a sandwich requires at least two slices of bread, a legal standard that your average hot dog does not meet. The debate really does not have to go any further.