This statement is false: Found in the cirriculum of the first US Public Schools, 1647... "...one chi

I'm just going to skip over the first part of Pro's round because the conduct is in the hands of the voter."Nitpicking is defined as being overly critical or to criticize minor details.This means he has conceded the debate."First, since Pro is just making up his own definitions and didn't bother to source an ACTUAL definition, let's look at how nitpicking is actually defined in a dictionary...[1] minute, trivial, unnecessary, and unjustified criticism or faultfinding[2] minute and usually unjustified criticismNot that I ever conceded anything, but there is nothing in any definitions that I found that resembles Pro's stated definitions. Pro was too busy patting himself on the back to realize that he can't just make up definitions for use in a debate. Since there was no source justifying the use of the word "detail", Pro's argument using that word has been successfully refuted.In addition, even if he had provided an actual definition with that word in it, that still doesn't win him the debate. He would simply have shown poor word choice on my part, during that particular argument. It would have done nothing to help him meet his BoP.Next, he continues his rebuttal with this statement..."So, con claims that "[he] think[s] it unreasonable to assume that teachers wouldn't use the very wording of the law to show kids why it's necessary for them to be educated" and I agree." Then he says..."And until my opponent can provide a record of the specific curriculumin which he claims this is found my hands are tied." In the first statement, he agrees with me that it's unreasonable to assume that the teachers didn't use the wording of the Deluder Act. This can only be taken to mean one thing, that it is most reasonable to believe that they did use the wording of the law to teach kids.In the second statement, he waits for me to show him the cirriculum. Remember, Pro stated that the wording in my sig was a law, not part of the cirriculum. If he hasn't even seen the cirriculum then how can he say that my statement is factually incorrect, and expect to win a debate where he challenges me, and accepts the BoP for showing me factually incorrect on that?? How can Pro accurately argue that it isn't part of the cirriculum if he admits that he hasn't even seen the cirriculum??"And this point is made even more useless when you consider that the schoolhe claims the curriculum belonged to came before the law and so would not have anything, and I'll repeat my self because con didn't get this point last time, anything to do with this school, and so would not come up in the situation he mentioned." This is Pro's claim, not mine. He is the one who mentioned that a school existed prior to the law. As I stated last round, my sig does not say that it is in "all schools", or that the schools established under that law were the only ones in existence, thus his entire point on this is irrelevant. "First of all I just said that it could be argued, second of all I am applying this to the U.S because as the name says it is the United states of America, not the divided colonies of America as it was in the past, and not the partially dived states of America. Just like there used to be two Germanies."I thought I explained it pretty well last round but apparently not so I'll try again using Pro's example of Germany. If compulsory education began in East Germany in 1988, and Germany was unified in 1990, one would not be "factually" incorrect in saying that compulsory education began in Germany in 1988, if it still existed at the time the person made the statement.Now with that said, one could make an argument (not a good one) that the statement is "semantically incorrect", but that wasn't the BoP that Pro took on in this challenge. He challenged on the basis of it being "factually incorrect", but hasn't shown that anything is "factually" wrong."Minutia is trivial details. And what are details again?"Minutiae- a small or trivial detail. [3]Trivial- a) of little value or importance b) concerned only with trifling or unimportant things [4]Well, we don't know what details are because Pro neglected to provide a definition for his definitional argument. We do know though, that since the detail is "trivial", that it's of little value or importance, so he hasn't shown how this helps his case."So, this would, in fact, make it not minutia as the details are in no way trivial."He hasn't shown how the details are important so my use of the word "minutia" is justified."I will concede to an extent, as I went a bit far. It can be said to have something to do with the U.S in that it is apart of its history. Regardless, this fact is irrelevant."It's not at all irrelevant since my entire point was that it's part of our history, the history of the US, which Pro concedes to in his above statement. "In my opinion, which I have shown to be backed by fact, you lied to try and back up the claim that the U.S is/was a christian nation." First of all, Pro hasn't shown where I have ever said that the US is a Christian nation. I've never said that because I know it isn't true. I said that the country "was founded on Judeo-Christian principles". That is a far cry from saying that it's a Christian nation, so Pro is simply misrepresenting my statement. Secondly, Pro has not proven that I lied. Third, he has not shown "facts" to back up his opinion. "They're both lies, but one is bad and has good intent. The other is bad and has bad intent. Which is which, do you think?"This debate isn't about the voters deciding on who's lie is justified, nor have I been proven to have even told a lie. This debate is about whether my sig is factually incorrect, or not. SummaryPro challenged me to this debate, saying that people are saying that I won't defend my positions, hearsay. He also claims that I'm being dishonest about what I quoted in my sig. Further, he admits in the opening that he has BoP for showing my sig to be "factually incorrect".He begins, and then closes out his argumentation, by going on about how important "truth" is, and how dangerous it can be to lie with bad intent. Then, in the middle of his closing speech about telling the truth, he himself makes a glaring misrepresentation of one of my earlier statements.Pro came to the debate with three contentions, so let's look at how they turned out.1. He says that the Old Deluder Act is a law and not part of the cirriculum. Then he later admits that he hasn't even SEEN the cirriculum. He provided nothing in the way of proof that shows that his objection to my sig is justified. In other words, he has failed to prove this part of my sig to be "factually incorrect".2. He says that the US didn't exist at the time the law was passed. In response, I showed that the land would later become part of the US, and that the law is one of three laws that helped establish compulsory education in the land, which still exists to this day. I further showed that even our educators today are taught about the law as being instrumental to the history of education, as we now know it. It's legacy is evident in the US today, even if that land wasn't part of the US at that time, therefore it is not "factually incorrect". He partially conceded this point admitting it's part of our history.3. Pro conceded his third point saying it was based on a reading error on his part.He did try to make a tricky point using a made-up definition, and said that I had conceded, but provided no source for that definition. I refuted his argument using two sourced definitions from dictionaries. It's plain to see that Pro did not meet his burden of proof. He provided no factual information to back up his claim. Therefore, I thank Pro and the readers, and ask for a vote for Con. 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...; 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...;3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;4. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;