Chili.

With or without beans?

I will say I like "chili" with beans, while acknowledging that "real chili" does not contain beans. IMO they're different enough to be considered different dishes altogether.

I've seen this argument become violent (but usually supplemented by alcohol and a Texas vs everyone else debate).

Discuss.

Beans, beans the magical fruit...


Being a vegetarian I throw alllllll kinds of different beans into chili. Even when I wasn't veg, I wouldn't even consider skimping on the beans. It just seems like without them, the chili would lack substance.

But, I've never tried a legume-less chili, so I can't judge. I'm sure if you threw in a ton of other shit it would be pretty good.

Beans and pork.

I honestly didn't get the whole chili without beans thing until this I had a chili dog from a guy selling them out of a dingy looking salvage yard VW bus. Everything you're probably thinking occurred to me about buying hot dogs from a guy in a scary looking van, but these were the best hot dogs/chili I've ever had.

Turns out the guy was a former Navy cook with an antisocial personality disorder who just couldnt stand the thought of being employed by anybody but himself. He was ran out of business by the businesses that owned the parking lot he was operating out of.

I like my chili without beans

Most chili competition chili is prepared without beans, as are texas recipes...however, i prefer alot of beans in my chili.

barf

hold the beans, please

I like chili both ways.

I can't eat chili without beans. It's just mush without them.

Well, I can, I just need alot of bread for dipping/scooping.

*ObZ

I live in Cincinnati which next to Mexico City is probably the chili capitol of North America. We typically eat chili in the bowl with beans, and chili without on hot dogs.

Then there's Cincinnati-style chili, which at its most decadent includes chili with beans, meat, and onions, atop spaghetti, topped with shredded cheese and served with a side of oyster crackers.