system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: A churro is a doughnut

In my experience, a large majority of people try to exclude churros from the doughnut club.  I understand their arguments, but I have found yet to find a credible reason for considering a churro to be in a completely different category of pastry.  Some reasons why I think a churro has to be considered a doughnut:

1. Tons of doughnuts are stick shaped, even if they might not be as long and skinny as a churro.
2. Some churros are filled with stuff, some aren't, just like doughnuts.
3. In some places, Colombia being one of them, they have a specific type of ringed, dulce de leche filled fried doughnut that they call a churro.
4. Doughnuts make sense to be the highest level of sweet fried pastry with subcategories below it like churro.

Some arguments that might work:

1. As I mentioned, some doughnuts are stick shaped, and some are more crispy than others.  I think that there may be some arbitrary ratio of length to width or volume to surface area where you can say that one side of that ratio is a doughnut and the other side is a churro.  I'm not aware of any specific rules like this, but maybe they exist.  There may also be a similar way to look at the density of the batter.
2. A specific argument about why a churro should be categorized under some other umbrella category or why considering a churro as a doughnut is bad for some reason.

Arguments that almost definitely won't work:

1. Churro have been common in cultures where other types of doughnuts weren't prevalent.  While this is true, I don't see why we still can't choose to simplify the world by categorizing these churros as doughnuts.
2. Churros are better than doughnuts.  Well yes, that's true, clearly, but grilled cheese is better than all sandwiches but it's still a sandwich.

EDIT: I've really appreciated the responses so far and I've been entertained by the discussion.  I need to step away for the night.  But, I'll check the thread tomorrow and respond to any new points.

EDIT 2: Wow this blew up and the number of comments keeps going up while I type this edit.  I believe that I have responded to all unique arguments in some thread or another and any comments that I haven't responded to, I skipped because the point was already made in another thread.  If you believe that your argument is unique feel free to tag me in a reply and I'll go and respond when I have more time.

A couple misconceptions about my argument that I want to point out:

1. I am not advocating that we completely ignore all the unique characteristics of churros and just lump them in as a doughnut and call them that.  I understand this would diminish not only the allure of a churro but the rich history it has.  I think we can call a churro a doughnut at the same time as respecting it for its beauty and rich history.
2. I am open to the idea that all doughnuts are churros based on the historical timeline.
3. There are so many churro haters in here.  At least half a dozen comments saying "if you asked for a doughnut and someone brought you a churro, wouldn't you be pissed." No way.  I would have a new best friend.  And now, hopefully all of you will not secretly hope that your doughnut request ends with a churro.
gpt
Imagine this scenario.

You're working for the police as a hostage negotiator. You get a call. There's a situation at a nearby bank. A robbery went wrong and the suspect started taking hostages. Now he's surrounded by the police who have set up a perimeter outside the bank.

You rush over and get briefed by the officers at the scene. The guy's holed up with 20 people and he's armed. They managed to get him on the phone, and he says if you don't meet his demands, he's gonna start killing hostages right now.

You pick up the phone to talk to him. He only has one demand.

'Get me a donut'. He hangs up. And you're on the clock.

In that situation, do you get him churros?

And yes, you can replace 'donut' with 'sandwich' and 'churro' with 'hot dog'.