I really don't like the idea that Death Battle might consider SCALING equally valid as a burden of proof to FEATS

I know powerscaling in the end is a subjective matter. But I still need to share my opinion on this, and Kratos vs Asura is a perfect excuse for that.

Even if Scaling provides a bigger number for a character, through having fought a guy who fought a guy who broke the universe, if said character doesn't have a Feat that directly shows them doing that exact same thing, or at least doing something just slightly below it, it shouldn't take preference over their opponent being the opposite case. That is, if we can see their opponent directly perform the Feat breaking their universe, being just slightly above what they consistently normally do, but not getting indirect Scaling as high as the first combatant precisely because there is no one else in their universe shown to be at that level, or because through calculations theirs might be a smaller universe.

We can SEE Asura break a moon. We can SEE Asura KILL a creator God the size of the universe. We can only INFER that Kratos would have the kind of strength to split a moon apart. We can only INFER that Kratos COULD KILL the Primordial creator God of his universe.

In Scaling, there is some degree of certainty through math and statement, but also some degree of speculation. Specially on something, as I said, as subjective as fiction and powerscaling. With direct Feats, there is no degree of speculation that some character could kill God. Because they actually killed God.

Anyway, that's all I wanted to contribute to the whole controversial episode aftermath of this particular fight. That's the main point of contention of the episode that bothers me.

TL;DR: I believe that if a character achieves a certain number trough a direct Feat, but their opponent gets a bigger number through Scaling and has no supporting Feats that might get rationally near that number, it should go in favour of the character with the bigger Feat. Not the bigger Scaling.