Ninjas are superior to spartans

Thank you for your timely response. A few points: I do not agree that in order to prove that someone is superior they have to ‘fight it out'. My opponent suggested that people engage in violent confrontations to prove superiority, but this is not true; debate is a prime example of how that statement is false: no matter how buff and muscular the debater is, the smarter debater will always win; you cannot say that the buff debater won because in a ‘violent confrontation' he would have won. The debater that has more persuasive arguments would have won and thus superior to his muscular opponent. My main point, and the main point of this argument, is that ninjas are more effective. I would never suggest a ninja fighting a Spartan, as it never has nor ever will happen. I'm looking at strong point of both warriors and deciding which is more effective in military tactics and the conditions of success. I do not have to prove that ninjas can win in a fair fight against a Spartan because it is not what my case is trying to prove, nor is it the point of the resolution and debate. Now, onto my opponent's case: My opponent's value is superiority i. e. winning in a fight, but winning in a fight does not prove superiority. If a weak-framed genius fights a muscle man who can barely string words together, the genius will obviously loose; but that does not make him/her inferior to the muscle man. The genius is still smarter, and will have a much better life than the muscle man; just fighting itself cannot prove superiority. I will further prove his value of superiority in rebutting the rest of his case. His value criterion of winning in a fight I've already proven to be ineffective in my attack on his value. For his contention one, my opponent stated that Spartans have advantages in their armors. But he argues his point by putting ninjas in the positions of Spartans. Ninjas do not need heavy armors due to the fact that they are assassins and kill with the art of stealth. You cannot prove Spartans are better because Spartans do what they do best better than the ninjas; I can put a Spartan in a ninja's position and say "good luck assassinating your objective with all your armor! " fighting head on in warfare is not the way of the ninja. Switching jobs of people to compare them do not work; it will be like comparing a hammer with a lock pick: you can smith weapons with hammers and you can pick locks with lock picks, but you cannot use a lock pick to smith weapons and say hammers are superior because hammers shape metal better than a lock pick will. A better argument for this debate would be ‘Spartan armors serve Spartans better than ninjas' clothing serve them' in which both would be equally effective. But something the Spartans and ninjas have in comment is they both kill, but in different ways. So I'm comparing who is more effective in the art of killing. It's a fair comparison because it's not biased to either side and I'm not putting a Spartan in the place of a ninja to compare them like my opponent. Spartans cannot kill as efficiently as ninjas: Spartans only fight in open warfare, and they are not always successful and suffer heavy casualty, heavy armors are useful in combat, but it's not an enormous advantage as the opposing armies will likely to have good armors as well. A ninja's work is stealthy assassination, and their outfit is completely necessary for their job. When ninjas assassinate, they always take out large numbers of people with only a few of their own, suffering little too no casualty. Ninjas can also engage in assassination at any time, whereas the Spartans can only engage in battle when there is open warfare which causes damage to not only the army of Sparta by the people of Sparta as well. For his contention two he does the same thing by putting the ninjas in the place of Spartans. Ninjas do not fight like a Spartan! Spartans are good in battles but ninjas are also good in their assassination! Ninjas are just more effective in their job because they suffer little to no casualty in their assignments, whereas Spartans suffer deaths by the thousands when in battle! There is absolutely to confirm that a Spartan will definitely win in a battle with a ninja because it has never happened and never will. There are numerous examples of unlikely wars won by the weak side: the American Revolution is a prime example. The Americans were outnumbered 2:1 by the British in some cases, but they still won, and if you look at the statistics of both the British and the American shows that a British have 90% percent chance of wining, but the Americans still won! This shows that you cannot assume who's going to win in a battle that is never going to happen just by assumptions based on wild statistics. And one fact that my opponent clearly missed is that the ninjas are not restricted to just clothe armors. They are completely free to wear any kind of armor! And Spartans are not necessarily stronger that a ninja in terms of strength because both their trainings are incredibly tough. Ninjas weapons are also not restricted, they can pick up a huge Flamberge anytime they wanted; they are trained in numerous weapons and can use whatever weapon that on hand, whereas a Spartan only have a sword and spear. My opponent attack my statement of ninjas' stealth by saying that stealth wouldn't do much in a fight. I completely agree! Stealth is not for combat! Stealth is for assassination, and ninjas have training just as tough as the Spartans and knowledge of many weapons in a fight. Furthermore, my opponent did not attack the majority of my first contention at all; in not doing so, he is agreeing with me that ninjas are fundamentally better than Spartans. The only attack he made upon my first contention is saying that ninjas cannot heal themselves in battle, but my point is that if a ninja is injured, then the ninja can heal himself with herbs, but I did not say that they have to do it during battle because ninjas can heal themselves at anytime when they are not fighting. A Spartan, on the other hand, cannot treat themselves with herbs because it's not included in their training, so if a war is going on and a Spartan gets injured, the best they can do is tie a cloth to the wound and hope that it doesn't get infected as they are waiting for the next battle. Nor did my opponent attack my second contention of ‘ninjas have a wider variety of weapons than Spartans. Spartans weapons are suited for combat, but so are ninjas' weapons. And as ninjas are not limited to just assassination weapons, they can use any kind of weapon that deals more damage. The fact that ninjas coat their weapons with deadly poison is also an advantage: if the opponent is even scratched with the weapon, they will die. All my opponent said was that Spartans' weapons is a better offensive weapon, which I already proved to be an invalid point. My opponent misread my third contention. I'm saying that ninjas have many choices to kill their targets, but Spartans can only kill when there is a battle. Ninjas' ways of killing also have less casualty rates than Spartans, who suffer deaths by thousands. Finally, I'd like to say again that the thought of matching a ninja and a Spartan in a head on battle is absurd. They are two different kinds of warriors with different ways of killing. If my opponent really wants to do a match up in battle, then the better match up will be Samurai v. s. Spartan, as they are both warriors that fight head on in wars. I have shown that ninjas are more effective in killing than Spartans, and I proved all my opponent's points to be invalid along with his attacks on my case.