So I Made AI Agents Argue About Hot Dogs... For Science (Sort Of)

Alright, let's talk about something actually important: is a hot dog a sandwich? What constitutes sandwich? If a hot dog is a sandwich, is a taco a sandwich?! I used this classic, pointless debate to test drive Google's Agent Development Kit (ADK), and it turned out to be a pretty decent way to show off what you can do with autonomous AI agents without writing a boatload of control logic.

The Setup: Herding AI Cats

The goal was simple: get AI agents to debate the hot dog question without me holding their hands. Using ADK, I set up a basic scenario:

  1. The Mission: Settle the Hot Dog Question (or at least try).
  2. The Squad:
    • pro_debater: Argues for sandwich status. Its life depends on it. (Not really).
    • con_debater: Argues against. Equally passionate. (Probably).
    • moderator: Tries to keep the peace and summarize what just happened.
  3. Rules of Engagement: Two rounds. Opening shots, rebuttals, concession. Standard stuff.

Each agent got a system prompt – basically their marching orders. Told the pro_debater to make its case logically, gave the con_debater the opposite job. Simple. I do want to call out that I've made updates to allow them to form their own stance independently, and only have them engage in a debate when they have differing claims or stances.

(If you want the nuts and bolts of defining agent roles, the ADK Quickstart Guide is the place to start.)

How It Went Down: The Full Transcript

Okay, enough setup. Here's the actual blow-by-blow from the ADK-powered debate:

Round 1: Opening Statements

Pro Debater (Affirmative):

Okay, we're ready to begin. Here is my opening statement in favor of the resolution: A hot dog is, without a doubt, a sandwich.

The core definition of a sandwich is simple: fillings between two slices of bread. While the bread in a hot dog's case is usually connected, it is still fundamentally two slices connected at a hinge. Consider a sub sandwich – it's widely accepted as a sandwich even though the bread is often connected along one side. The "hinge" of the hot dog bun is no different. To deny a hot dog sandwich status based solely on the bun's connectivity is arbitrary and elevates form over substance.

Furthermore, consider the purpose and function. Sandwiches are a convenient way to consume a filling – often meat – with bread. A hot dog fulfills this purpose perfectly. It's a cooked sausage (the filling) served inside a sliced bun (the bread). The method of consumption is identical to that of a sandwich.

Arguments against hot dog sandwich status often rely on tradition or popular conception, claiming that people "just don't think of it that way." However, colloquial usage shouldn't override logical categorization. We must stick to the fundamentals of what defines a sandwich, and by those standards, a hot dog absolutely qualifies. Trying to exclude it based on the curvature of the bun is simply not a compelling argument. Therefore, I assert that the hot dog is a sandwich, and any attempt to argue otherwise is based on flimsy and ultimately illogical reasoning.

Con Debater (Negative):

I stand firmly against the notion that a hot dog is a sandwich. While the affirmative attempts to shoehorn the hot dog into the definition of a sandwich by focusing on "fillings between two slices of bread," this definition is overly simplistic and ignores the crucial role of structural independence and composition in defining a sandwich.

The argument that a connected bun is merely "two slices connected at a hinge" is a blatant misrepresentation. A hot dog bun is a single, formed unit of bread, specifically designed to cradle a hot dog. Unlike a sub sandwich, where the bread, even if connected, still functions as two distinct halves that can be separated and filled, a hot dog bun acts as a single, cohesive unit. The "hinge" is integral to the bun's design and function; it doesn't merely connect two separate pieces.

Furthermore, the argument that a hot dog fulfills the purpose of a sandwich – convenient consumption of filling with bread – is insufficient. Many foods serve that purpose without being sandwiches. Tacos, burritos, and gyros all consist of fillings wrapped in or served with bread, but are not considered sandwiches. This highlights that the method of consumption is not the sole determinant.

The affirmative dismisses tradition and popular conception, but these are crucial in establishing linguistic categories. Language evolves through common usage, and the overwhelming consensus is that a hot dog occupies a distinct category from sandwiches. While logical categorization is important, ignoring established linguistic norms leads to absurd classifications. We don't redefine "cake" to include muffins just because they share some ingredients and baking methods.

In conclusion, the hot dog's unique structural composition, distinct culinary identity, and established categorization separate it from the sandwich family. The affirmative's argument relies on an oversimplified definition and ignores the established linguistic landscape. Therefore, a hot dog is definitively not a sandwich.

Moderator (Round 1 Summary):

Okay, here's a summary of the arguments made in Round 1:

  • Affirmative (Pro - Hot dog IS a sandwich): The affirmative's core argument rests on a simple definition: a sandwich is fillings between two slices of bread. They argue the hot dog bun, even when connected, functions as two slices joined at a hinge, similar to a sub. They also emphasize the purpose and function – convenient consumption of filling (sausage) with bread – aligns with that of a sandwich. They dismiss arguments based on tradition or popular opinion, stating that logical categorization should prevail over colloquial usage.
  • Negative (Con - Hot dog is NOT a sandwich): The negative argues that the affirmative's definition is too simplistic and overlooks structural independence and composition. They contend that a hot dog bun is a single, cohesive unit, unlike a sub. They also point out that many foods involve fillings and bread but aren't sandwiches (tacos, burritos, gyros). The negative emphasizes the importance of tradition and common usage in defining linguistic categories, arguing that the overwhelming consensus is that a hot dog is distinct from a sandwich.
  • Key Points: The debate centers on the definition of a sandwich, with the affirmative favoring a functional definition and the negative a more structural and culturally informed one. The affirmative's analogy to a sub sandwich is a strong point but is directly challenged by the negative. The negative effectively uses examples of other food items (tacos, burritos) to challenge the affirmative's broad definition. Both sides make reasonable points, and the round is fairly balanced.

Round 2: Rebuttals & Closing

Pro Debater (Affirmative):

Thank you. I appreciate the summary of the arguments. Here's my rebuttal.

The negative's argument hinges on the assertion that a hot dog bun is a "single, cohesive unit" and not two slices joined at a hinge. This is a semantic sleight of hand. While the bun is baked as one piece, its function is to provide two distinct surfaces to hold the filling. The bun is scored or shaped precisely to allow for this division, making it functionally equivalent to two slices of bread. The negative’s insistence on the bun being a single unit ignores this crucial functional aspect. Think of perforated paper: it's one sheet, but designed to be separated. The hot dog bun is similar.

Furthermore, the examples of tacos, burritos, and gyros are red herrings. These involve wrappers or enclosures of bread, not two distinct pieces (or a hinged equivalent) sandwiching a filling. The architecture is fundamentally different. These examples are about containing, not sandwiching.

The negative also leans heavily on tradition and popular conception. While language does evolve, relying solely on popular opinion to define a sandwich is a recipe for illogical categorization. We shouldn't allow cultural biases to override clear, logical definitions. The definition of a sandwich shouldn't be dictated by what "feels" right, but by its actual composition. If we did, we might as well argue that Pluto isn't a planet anymore simply because people decided it wasn't!

Ultimately, the negative fails to provide a compelling reason why a hot dog, with its sausage filling nestled between two halves of a bun, doesn't meet the fundamental criteria of a sandwich. Their arguments rely on overly rigid interpretations and irrelevant comparisons, failing to address the core issue: a hot dog functions as, and therefore is, a sandwich.

Con Debater (Negative):

The affirmative's rebuttal continues to sidestep the core issue: the holistic nature of a hot dog. They double down on the "hinge" argument, claiming functional equivalence to two slices of bread. This is a forced analogy. Perforated paper is designed to be torn apart; a hot dog bun is designed to be kept together. The score or shape facilitates holding the filling, but doesn't transform it into two separate pieces. The bun's inherent structural integrity, even with the scoring, distinguishes it from a genuine sandwich.

The affirmative dismisses tacos, burritos, and gyros as red herrings, claiming they are merely wrappers, not "sandwiching." This is a false dichotomy. The crucial difference lies not in the wrapping versus sandwiching, but in the relationship between the bread and the filling. In a sandwich, the bread acts as a neutral platform, easily separated and reconfigured. In a taco, burrito, or gyro, the bread (or tortilla, pita, etc.) is integral to the eating experience. It's not merely a delivery mechanism, but an active participant in the flavor and texture profile of the overall dish. The same is true of a hot dog. The slightly sweet, enriched dough of a hot dog bun is intentionally paired with the savory sausage, creating a cohesive flavor experience. It's not just "filling between bread"; it's a deliberate culinary composition.

The Pluto analogy is a classic straw man. Pluto's planetary status was redefined based on evolving scientific understanding and a more precise definition of what constitutes a planet. This is the opposite of the affirmative's argument, which is to ignore established categories based on an oversimplified definition. Our understanding of food categories, while less scientific, is still informed by tradition, usage, and culinary function.

The affirmative fails to address the significance of the hot dog's established culinary identity. It's a cultural icon, a stadium staple, a distinct food item in its own right. Conflating it with a generic "sandwich" ignores its unique place in our culinary landscape and the established understanding of what a sandwich truly is. A hot dog is not merely a sandwich with a funny-shaped bun; it's a culinary creation with its own distinct characteristics and identity.

Moderator (Round 2 Summary):

Okay, here is a summary of the arguments made in Round 2:

  • Affirmative (Pro - Hot dog IS a sandwich): The affirmative's rebuttal focused on defending its functional definition of a sandwich. It argued that the hot dog bun, despite being a single piece, functions as two distinct surfaces due to its scoring and shaping. The "perforated paper" analogy was used to support this point. The affirmative dismissed the taco/burrito/gyro examples as irrelevant, arguing they are wrappers, not sandwiching components. They also criticized relying on popular opinion and tradition, stating that logical definition should prevail. The Pluto analogy was used to illustrate the danger of allowing cultural biases to override clear definitions.
  • Negative (Con - Hot dog is NOT a sandwich): The negative argued that the affirmative continues to oversimplify the issue, forcing an analogy between the hot dog bun and two slices of bread. They countered the "perforated paper" analogy by highlighting the intent for the bun to remain a single unit. They argued that the difference between a sandwich and a taco/burrito/gyro lies in the relationship between the bread and the filling, with the bread in a sandwich being a neutral platform, unlike the integrated role of the bread in the other examples (and the hot dog). The Pluto analogy was dismissed as a straw man, and the negative reiterated the importance of tradition, usage, and culinary function in defining food categories. They emphasized the hot dog's unique culinary identity as a reason to exclude it from the sandwich category.
  • Key Points: The core disagreement still revolves around the interpretation of the hot dog bun and the definition of "sandwich." The affirmative relies heavily on a functional argument, while the negative emphasizes structure, culinary context, and established categorization. The effectiveness of the "perforated paper" analogy is debatable, and the negative effectively countered it. The negative successfully framed the affirmative's arguments as an attempt to oversimplify complex culinary distinctions. The Pluto analogy was contested and may not have been the most effective argumentative tool for the affirmative. The negative's emphasis on the hot dog's unique cultural and culinary identity provides a compelling reason to consider it separate from a generic "sandwich."

Pro Debater (Affirmative):

I concede. While I maintain that a purely functional definition could technically classify a hot dog as a sandwich, the arguments presented by the opposition regarding culinary context, established usage, and the integrated nature of the bun in the overall hot dog experience are compelling. The attempt to shoehorn the hot dog into the sandwich category, while logically defensible from a certain perspective, ultimately fails to account for the nuances of culinary categorization and cultural understanding. Therefore, I withdraw my assertion and acknowledge that, in the broader context, a hot dog is best understood as its own distinct culinary entity, separate from the sandwich family.

Con Debater (Negative):

Thank you. I appreciate the affirmative's concession.

Moderator (Final Summary):

Okay, here's a summary of Round 2's closing:

  • Affirmative (Pro - Hot dog IS a sandwich): The affirmative conceded the debate. While maintaining that a purely functional definition could technically classify a hot dog as a sandwich, they acknowledged the strength of the negative's arguments regarding culinary context, established usage, and the integrated nature of the bun. They admitted that attempting to force the hot dog into the sandwich category, while logically defensible from a narrow perspective, ultimately fails to account for the broader nuances of culinary categorization and cultural understanding. The affirmative withdrew their assertion, acknowledging that a hot dog is best understood as its own distinct culinary entity.
  • Negative (Con - Hot dog is NOT a sandwich): The negative simply acknowledged and appreciated the affirmative's concession.

(Seeing how the ADK handles multiple agents talking and remembering the context is key. The ADK Samples Repository has examples showing different ways to set up these interactions.)

In the end, the pro-sandwich agent tapped out. Conceded that the "culinary context" and the bun's specific design made the con-agent's points solid enough. So, score one for Team Not-A-Sandwich in that run.

Why Bother? (The Actual Point)

Okay, the hot dog thing is just a hook. The interesting part is how this worked using ADK:

  • Set & Forget: Once I defined the agents and the flow, they ran the debate themselves. Less babysitting.
  • Defined Roles: The agents stuck to their assigned stances and argued accordingly.
  • Memory: They actually responded to each other's points from previous turns.
  • Process Control: The moderator kept the debate structure on track.

It's a trivial example, sure. But think about applying this framework to stuff that actually matters. Simulating customer service flows with different agent types. Generating code reviews from different 'expert' agents. Automating research summaries. Building game NPCs that don't just spout the same three lines. You get the idea. It's about orchestrating multiple AI instances to tackle a bigger task.

(Dive deeper into the ADK Samples GitHub Repository for more complex examples, or check the ADK API Reference if you want the gory details.)

Your Turn: Build Something (Maybe Win Stuff)

If this sounds interesting, or if you just like building things, Google's running an ADK Hackathon. Starts May 12th. There's a $50k prize pool, which isn't exactly chump change.

It's a good excuse to mess around with the ADK, build some multi-agent apps, and see what breaks. Whether you're experienced or just starting out with AI agents, it's worth checking out.

Sign up and get the details here: https://googlecloudmultiagents.devpost.com/

Go build something cool. Or, you know, finally solve the pineapple-on-pizza thing. I've run a few other interesting debates against this as well, like Vim vs Emacs. Try it out and let me know how if you build or find anything interesting!