User blog comment:Brobuscus101/Top 32 Season 2 Death Battle Episodes/@comment-25430354-20160215000045

I'll copy and paste what I said about Wolf's Mega Man vs Astro Boy rant, since it's the same points:

The two points I keep hearing in Wolf's rants that I've heard plenty elsewhere is how it differs from Proto's verdict and how they "lied" about the sun feat.

Let's start with the sun feat. I'm unaware if the ending of the original AB showed him get physically incinerated by the sun or not, but I am aware it has been pointed out from many people that the feat they showed was from a what if storyline. My issue isn't people being upset that they used it, that was wrong of DB to do. My issue is that because they used it, they're "lying" about his durability and the results. Is lying seriously the first instinct? We've seen them occasionally mess up certain story aspects of feats in the past. How is this different? Because it's a what if? We've also seen them use composites of characters in the past as well. If someone hands in a research paper with backed up feats and you see something wrong, chances are they weren't lying in their paper, they were just misguided or didn't research properly. Given Screwattack's history with Mega Man before and after DB was created, do you REALLY think they were so hellbent on making him lose?

Now for Proto. Look, Proto's a fantastic guy and a great researcher who knows how to back up his arguments, and he does have a solid argument for Mega Man vs Astro Boy (outside of Fatal Fiction, since he has said that he has wanted to update that episode for a while). But it's not a perfect argument. Ultraguy did a solid job analyzing why he thought some of the feats Proto did were questionable in the prediction blog, and frankly it was upsetting to see him attacked when he was trying to defend SA's and his own argument. I'm not gonna act like Ultra's verdict was 100% spot on, but I don't want people acting like those in CGG's comment section of his Mega Man vs Astro Boy. It's better to form your own argument with elements of the video you're referencing rather than act like the entirety of it is right.