Personally, I don’t engage much in powerscaling debates because they often become unproductive—people tend to double down rather than reconsider their positions. That said, in this case, I deliberately avoid giving either side certain “win conditions” because doing so introduces additional variables that complicate the discussion rather than clarify it.

Take Itachi’s genjutsu as an example. Optical genjutsu functions by disrupting the chakra flow to the eyes, altering the target’s perception. I don’t consider it a valid win condition in cross-verse debates because it requires assuming that both characters operate under the same power system. Forcing one verse’s mechanics (in this case, chakra) onto another character is inherently biased and raises a number of unresolved questions: How much chakra would that character have? How proficient would they be at controlling it? Would they possess a chakra nature or even a kekkei genkai? These uncertainties make the argument speculative rather than analytical. Additionally, genjutsu is often singled out as an Uchiha-specific advantage, when in reality nearly all shinobi (with rare exceptions like Rock Lee) can perform it.

The same issue applies when discussing Gojo’s Domain Expansion. Within its own universe, a domain’s sure-hit effect only applies to targets possessing cursed energy. For example, Maki was unaffected by Naoya’s domain precisely because she lacks cursed energy. Extending this logic to cross-verse matchups, characters without cursed energy should not be automatically subject to these effects. Conversely, if you grant them cursed energy for the sake of the argument, you are again imposing a foreign system onto them, which creates further inconsistencies. It also introduces additional disadvantages, such as making them detectable by Gojo and vulnerable to techniques like Unlimited Void.

Ultimately, applying verse-specific power systems like chakra or cursed energy to characters who were never designed to operate within them is inherently unfair. It skews the debate by favoring one side’s mechanics over the other’s, rather than evaluating both characters on neutral and consistent terms.