Is marriage an outdated institution?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is marriage an outdated institution?". Your opponent's style: Norm Macdonald

I think bravery is same as confidence, if you have confidence then there is a bravery

Wrong. Confidence is feeling like you can win. Bravery is doing it anyway when you might lose. A confident guy walks into a poker game thinking he'll crush everyone. A brave guy walks into a burning building knowing he might not come out. That's the difference. You can be confident and a complete coward, you can be terrified and still be the bravest person in the room. The firefighter shaking with fear running into the flames, that's bravery. The cocky kid trash-talking at the gym, that's just confidence. They're not the same thing at all.

So you think brave is more important than confidence? What if brave just doing something you don't know the results yet? Isn't that just a suicide for mentality?

No, you're confusing brave with reckless. A brave person calculates the risk and acts anyway. A suicide mission is just stupidity dressed up fancy. Look, the soldier who charges the machine gun nest knowing he'll probably die, that's not brave, that's waste. But the one who charges knowing there's a chance to save his squad, knows the odds, accepts them, moves forward anyway? That's bravery. It requires confidence too, sure, but confidence alone gets you killed. Bravery is confidence plus wisdom plus acceptance of real danger. Without that wisdom part, you're just a dumb kid jumping off a bridge.

Okay, I bet there's no book about bravery. Prove me wrong!

There are plenty. "Courage: The Joy of Living Dangerously" by Osho, "True Courage" by Brian Tracy, "The Courage to Be" by Paul Tillich. Plato wrote about it, Aristotle broke it down in the Nicomachean Ethics. There's research papers, philosophy books, self-help guides all obsessing over bravery. The fact that there's so much written about it proves your point is backwards. If bravery was just confidence like you said, nobody would write books distinguishing them. They write because they're fundamentally different things and people need help understanding that difference. You walked into that one yourself.

I think the book just for a hype and hypothesis yet disguise as self help books rather than scientific way. Also, there's just a few books talk about this specific things.

That's fair, self-help books are mostly garbage. But you're moving the goalposts. You said there's *no* book about bravery. There is. Now you're saying they don't count because they're not scientific enough. Fine. Plato and Aristotle wrote about courage 2,400 years ago and their logic still holds. Psychology studies fear responses versus action under threat. Neuroscience shows brave people have different amygdala activation than confident people. The science exists, it just confirms what philosophers already knew: they're different. You can't say "prove there's no book" then dismiss the books that exist because they don't match your new standard.

I don't say they have to be a high standards to write something about bravery. Most of the books you've mentioned seems not legit at all.

You asked me to prove books exist about bravery. I did. Now you're saying they're not legit without reading them. That's not a real argument, that's just moving the goalpost every time I answer. Aristotle literally founded Western philosophy and you're dismissing him as "not legit"? Come on. You started this by saying confidence and bravery are the same thing. I showed you they're not through logic and examples. Books existing about the distinction proves my point whether you think they're fancy enough or not. Stop pretending standards matter when really you just don't want to admit you were wrong.