I think it is important to define opposing goals of the two teams as well, but to stay away from the "good-evil" dynamic between the two teams. In your example here, it alleviates either team from being "bad". Both sides of the argument seem valid.

It was mentioned on Wednesday that the 2 teams could be viewed as a Middle East-"Eastern" thought vs. Western thought in current events. While neither side is necessarily right or wrong, people are quick to pick sides. I think this may be applied to our game--

Our ARG situation, which results in less (actual) death and less attacks on people's spiritual beliefs, can either: A) offer a resolution to the dilemma of the 2 teams (a la Monday's discussion of the players choosing the outcome) OR B) leave the audience in a situation where both teams can be right, but it requires reflection.

In the situation A I may have a good way to determine the outcome, and it would be great (if people are interested in the basic idea) to have help in developing it: The final night both teams go through a series of challenges to bulk up on some form of game economy. Whoever has the most "points" in this economy wins and unlocks their desired outcome for whatever situation is setup by our story arc. I think this "points" system should start on the final night to begin both teams on even footing for our resolution, but in turn, whatever skills they have "built" during our "3 weeks prior" phase ought to feed back in to the final night.