If the knight had a shield the samurai would be all like "oh ****" and
probably not even engage the knight because there's nothing 1 sword can
do against it. He would honestly just run until the knight got tired of
carrying 2 heavy metal objects instead of 1, and then choose to attack
This part alone just hows how ignorant you are, there is no reason to carry a wooden shield when you are covered in steel. Examples of shields other than targes or heater shields used in battle by medieval knights are so rare as to be almost non-existant shields do not even enter into this argument
b) Samurai were evasive with their fighting style and did not like to
clash swords, they used almost a "light hopping" stance when they
fought, and preferred to avoid and counterattack. This means that the
strength advantage of a knight being able to overpower a samurai isn't
applicable unless he can manage to come in contact with the samurai.
Sure a samurai could run away if he wanted, that isn't fighting and is therefore irrelevant to this question.
a) Japanese samurai armor was considered superior because of its
multi-layered design which was extremely effective at absorbing and
dispersing the shock of an impact by the layers "catching" the blow,
unlike European armor which was simply (although admittedly hard) flat
steel plate. If you don't know this they you are a reverse-weaboo and
based your conceptions of their armor off of a picture.
layered composite armour is undoubtedly better at absorbing blunt trauma but it is not proof against edged or pointed weapons in even close to the same way.
A list of european medieval edged or bladed weapons: various swords, various axes, poleaxes, halberds, bills, lances.
A list of samurai blunt trauma weapons: donut.
d) that probably wouldn't happen anyways if he just used a bow and was on a horse LIKE ALL SAMURAI DID
The only bow that could hope to pierce the best plate armour was the english/welsh longbow (it is debatable the extent to which even that could penetrate) which were over 6 feet in length and could have a draw weight over 150lb, therefore they are unuseable from horseback even if a samurai had posessed one and been trained to use one from an early age (which he did not and was not). Yes he could have fled on horseback if he wanted but again, that is not a fight.
e) I don't care if knight armor was structured or some ****, it's still
heavy, and if you get knocked over it's GG. Yes, the armor is
structured to support its own weight well, but only when you're
standing. There was a lot of trouble with knights getting knocked off
horseback, and not being able to stand back up before getting stabbed.
Yes full plate armour is heavy (generally between 50 and 60 pounds) but knights trained to adapt to the weight and given proper exerience had very little trouble with stamina or movement (there are numerous reports of people dancing and running in armour). If you knock a knight down you will have a significant advantage (although it is in no way impossible for him to get back up) but if you knock a samurai down you will also have a significant advantage and it is extremely difficult to knock down a man wearing 50 lbs of steel. If we assume the fight is from horseback the knight has an even greater advantage because he has a far longer lance (often up to 3 or 4 meters) which is couched into his armour and because there is over a tonne of man horse and armour behind the point of his lance.
Link
I also consider most of Asia backwards with their morality
P.S. but don't get me wrong I like the attention you're giving me