we should have courage and reasons to have courage

I don't feel that Hitler by any means was a noble man or his actions were just. However someone could say he has demonstrated some of the traits that my opponent has defined. I knew my opponent would object to the idea that Hitler was courageous but I felt by doing so it would have allowed my opponent to reevaluate his ideas. Based on the argument that I delivered in the last two arguments one can conclude that the differentiation between fear and courage is that fear is a factor involved in courage but courage is not a factor involved in fear. I feel that my opponent is confusing courage with noble leadership traits. If so I would agree that courage as well as all the other traits that my opponent has mentioned are, admirable traits for a good leader to have. I would even go further to add other traits that, I to feel are necessary for a good leader. However, these traits are not the defining traits of courage. My opponent keeps bringing up the word Tranny (is the basically an absolute ruler who abuses their authority and oppresses their subjects) and uses it as the opposite of courage. The opposite of courage is cowardice and foolhardiness not tyranny. My opponent also seems to think that an individual who demonstrates courage is doing so for (what my opponent feels is) a noble cause. However, I beg to differ and feel that an individual who is partaking in unacceptable acts can demonstrate courage. How is a gang member fighting for a cause he believes in, differ in courage from a soldier who is fighting for a cause he believes in? Given similar circumstances in which both the gangster and the solider have reasons to fear action due to their situation (what is there to fear and what are the benefits/risks of taking a particular action to the given circumstance), they have an ability to choose what form of action they take. The choice they make determines if the act is an act of courage, foolhardiness, or cowardice. If the person goes into a burning building to save their cat, favor cd, a person pick one KNOWING there is NO way they will even be able to make it to the cat, favor cd, person and will most likely die just by walking into the door. Furthermore, the act of walking into the building either has no effect on the outcome, in fact it made it worse because one more person is dead this is foolhardiness. That is not courage because there goal was to save the cat, favor cd, person and they acted upon it without really contemplating the risks and respecting what they should have feared. People will look at this person walking into the building and think what an idiot. If the person goes up person is walking by a building and they hear someone yelling for help and they see a tiny old lady in a wheelchair is tipped over. The old lady asks them for help and the individual said "no I am too afraid I might stub my toe helping you, but I really wish I could help you." That is cowardice because there is no real threat and the fear prevents them from helping the old lady when they could easily take action in this situation and meet their goal of helping her. Courage is in between these two things it is the balanced way to act. Let's go back to the example of the burning building in which person A sees person B in the building. The person A notices that in this case the fire is not fully developed also person A notices that the hoes near the house still works and they are able to soak there clothing in water to prevent it from burning and put out some of the fire. Person A also is fairly confident they can save person B but are aware of the risks that could happen. Person A still thinks with respect to the risks they can still save person B and acts upon it. Person A is demonstrating courage because they acted on something even though they knew the risks and they had reason to fear these risks. You will also notice that in each scenario the action taken was for the sake of a just cause and that I mentioned earlier that I didn't think that courage had to be a just cause. This is because courage is an abstract though as well as justice and other things of similar nature. I am sure that my opponent would agree that part of courage is acting in accordance to your beliefs, and various statements my opponent has made support this idea. Since people differ in beliefs how does on choose what is right or wrong? Is possible that people on purpose believe in something they feel is the wrong belief? The idea of people not believing their beliefs are the right beliefs is ludicrous because if they didn't believe in an idea by default it is not their belief. There is a government in which the vast majority of it citizens are happy and think it is the greatest thing on earth. However, an individual believes that the government is not functioning correctly, that they could do a better job, they have a group of followers that agree with them, and therefore they should overthrow the government. They can demonstrate courage even though the majority of citizens love the government. This is because they have something to fear (Treason which in the modern day, a conviction of treason is accompanied at a minimum by a long jail sentence and a heavy fine, and may merit the death penalty or life in prison under certain circumstances.) however the followers are very determined and he has support from other governments (who promise to send troops and aid for his cause) he feels that he can do it however he is aware that if he fails he will be torcher and hung but he is confident enough to take a chance. To some he is a hero to others a villain but he still demonstrated courage. He respected the ideas of some but not of others but he still demonstrated courage. If everyone respected everyone's views there would be no reason to fight because everyone would accept everyone for who they are right? Well maybe because what if we did live in this world and we respected everyone's belief except for one person who felt certain people should not live and started killing them. Should we respect his belief, his feeling and his moral thought and is that courage? No courage is an individual characteristic based on the INDIVIDUALS BELIEFS not on the group beliefs, and they act in a rational manner given the circumstance and in accordance to those beliefs. Responsibility is doing something you ought to do. My opponent's statement on responsibility is "responsibility you must have common sense to reason with and make wise decisions." To degree this would be correct but this is more of idea that comes from responsibility rather than the defining characteristic of responsibility as a whole. Back to the revolutionist who is he responsible for himself, his country, and his followers. Since he chooses to follow his beliefs but is not a responsible citizen and he doesn't make a decision that is good for the general public. This doesn't mean he still didn't demonstrate courage because he is standing up for what he believes to be true in a situation in which fear is understandable and is rational. My opponent failed to address Round two paragraphs five and six which addressed a situation in which no other individuals are involved. My opponent dismisses the whole idea altogether and seems to think that the will to survive is not a courageous act. Choosing not to choose is a choice and choosing not to act is and action. To state that the act of pursuing a goal in life or willing one's self to live is not courage than this conversation is pointless. Without the will to live then the five traits are meaningless. If one cannot find the courage to fight and pursue life how can one purse anything at all.