Still Matt, the weight of the arms, even if we factored them in, which we might as well factor in the weight of the body at this point because that is also propelling the blade, would not have much of an effect on the speed of the swing as the weight of the weapon because of the arms closer proximity to the center of rotation. The sword has a much higher torquing effect.
It most certainly does! The main issue, however is that the sword does not weigh very much, plus its centre of gravity is usually at the cross guard, which is roughly twice the distance of the centre of gravity of the arm, meaning the torque on the blades will roughly be 2*1.25 (i.e. 2.5) lb.units and 2*1.8 (3.6) lb.units, while the torque on the arm will be 19 lb.units (done in units because the length really doesn't matter for the purposes of this argument). Again, the arm is still a very important factor. You can't keep saying 'oh, well it's sorta close to where the energy comes from, so we can just ignore it'. It's there, it has an effect.
Seeing as you seem to be struggling with the theory, you might want to try conducting an experiment. If you're an American, find a baseball bat and give it a swing and record the time taken. They're usually close to 2 pounds (though they have a bad weight distribution for a sword-like object, but that would work in your favour). If you're elsewhere, grab a cricket bat or some other piece of sporting equipment roughly similar in weight to a longsword.
Someone stop me, please! I think I need to ban myself from this thread! All of this debating is just because his physics is wrong, but even if it were right, that wouldn't mean the game would be balanced. Must...stop...feeding...troll...