European Knight vs. Japanese Samurai

In this argument I will argue against the rebuttals the pro made. Pro"s statements are abbreviated to save space. First of all, I made my point in the first argument and then posted the source for reference in my second argument. The pro has no reason to be hostile or accuse of plagiarism before attempting to clarify the situation. As my sources clearly demonstrate, the Samurai did indeed wear heavier armor. Your source gives an exagerated number for the weight of European armor, and as such I would question its validity. Of all people, I should be the one making this claim. My source is directly from Science Magazine, and although it is not a purely scholarly source, neither is the pro"s. However, it is a popular and well known corporation, and would face consequences if it were to publish false information. As such, my source clearly trumps the pro"s source in credibility, and it has also conducted an actual experiment to test its hypothesis, while the pro"s source is based upon speculation, and quite possibly even guesswork. No, there is no low class O-Yori, the armor worn by lower class Samurai was called Do-Maru".. Con may not change the terms of the debate after accepting them.. Although I was unaware that they had to wear the armor of a high class warrior, this will not change the outcome of the debate, so I will allow the pro to have his way. This is incredibly silly. Anyone with any blade experience ". know that in a real fight, the blade makes contact with an opponant after very few actions. I've previously established that the notion that a Katana is more wieldly than a longsword is bogus, and even in the case of a blade that is much quicker, the slower blade still doesn't struggle to make contact". This is utterly rediculous. I've also already established that the Samurai's armor is more taxing" As one of my earlier sources shows, Knights began training between the ages of five and seven, saw action on the field of battle from their early teens, and were only Knighted after intense training in the martial arts and significant battle experience" This is not how any bout of swordplay works, other than between complete amateurs" Con could have at least looked into some sword fighting ".. Knights were just as honor bound as Samurai "..no sword bout lasts longer than several minutes. Samurai fighting was based on speed, and I agree that usually a duel would be over in a matter of seconds, which the Pro does not understand. The Pro does not seem to realize that fighting style differed between that of the Samurai and the Knight. Most Samurai confrontations ended within the first few strikes, due to the speed of the Katana. Whether a person becomes a Samurai or not is based on the social status of the family he is born into, and the ways of a Samurai are slowly engraved into the child starting shortly after birth. If we are comparing the amount of time that the Knight and Samurai have spent training, the Samurai has an advantage of several years. Furthermore, Knights were nearly completely horseback warriors, and their training was focused mainly on fighting on a horse, while Samurais had a more rounded training, which would mean that the Samurai has an even greater advantage. Both my source and the Pro"s source agree that the Katana is a faster blade than the Longsword in terms of speed, and if the Knight is even only slightly capable, will know to guard against the faster blade. The Pro contends that my claim that the Samurai will know to keep his distance from the Knight is foolish. However, we have to understand that the Samurai has something called common sense. The Samurai has fought numerous battles with his weapon, and will undoubtedly know that there are limitations on its cutting ability. Putting even that aside, the Knight"s armor was like a steel shell, and even if the Samurai did not realize his cutting ability was limited, would know to stay away from the Knight"s seemingly impenetrable armor. Con demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of combat" What this debate comes down to is whether or not the Samurai or the Knight"s armor will wield him or her down more. My source from Science Magazine which cites an actual experiment states that a Knight"s armor was on average 90 pounds (30 " 50 kg) heavy, and there were around 20 pounds of weight placed upon the knees and thighs. This is the most credible source in the entire debate (see above), meaning that the information from my source is the one that should be used to evaluate the arguments. Meanwhile, the armor of the Samurai weighed around 60 pounds, and the majority of the burden was on the upper body. This means that the Samurai would have more limited swing, but less taxation expended upon his legs, making him much faster than the Knight. Seeing as how both the Pro"s source and my source agree that the Samurai"s Katana is faster, and that the Samurai"s fighting style promotes extremely quick, sudden movements, he will initiate the offense, and the Knight will guard against the faster blade. Seeing that the attack does not, in fact, penetrate the Knight"s armor, the Samurai will break off from the initial confrontation. A series of blows and then a reprieve is common in battles fought by BOTH Samurai and Knights, so if both are experienced warriors, there will undoubtedly be one. Now, the Samurai will see that the Knight"s physical walking and running speed is slower and requires more effort than his own, if he has not already noticed before the start of the battle. Being the experienced warrior that the Pro claims the Samurai is, he will realize that in order to survive he must create a long and drawn out battle. The Pro fences, so he does not realize that in a situation of actual life and death the Samurai will have to carefully weigh his options rather than go with the convention. At this point, my previous information comes into play. It is 2.3 times more difficult for the Knight to walk with armor on, and he will experience breathing issues due to the tight compression on his chest as a result of the armor, and the limiting helmet. Because of the extra weight on his legs, in terms of movement speed, the Knight will be unable to catch up to the Samurai if the Samurai does not wish to do battle. Honor bound by chivalry and bushido, both the Knight and Samurai will be forced to see the battle to the end. Without a horse, the Knight can"t retreat very far while being weighed down by all his armor. It"s fairly obvious at this point that, albeit how farfetched it seems, the Knight will eventually have to surrender himself to the Samurai and forfeit the battle. It may not be the flashiest victory, but it will be one created by necessity. While I have successfully argued that the Samurai will prevail, I would also like to remind the viewers that my grammar has clearly trumped the Pro"s throughout the debate, and my sources are far more reliable. Thanks for a great round!