So what? If you use a quick battle and get a result close to the worst-case scenario, it means:
1. You might not be good at fighting neutrals.
2. In a situation where a quick battle can be replayed, a normal player wouldn't agree to use it, which means the result is the same as a regular battle.
3. If you played a quick battle without magic, your battle would definitely end in a loss, so the example is not relevant.

Let me help you. To support your position, you need to provide an example of a map where a quick battle without magic (apparently, it needs to be tested in WoG) would give a noticeably better result than a regular battle, but at the same time, it wouldn't be obvious to use a quick battle there. In principle, you could try rushing high-morale monsters, like royal minotaurs or angels...

1. In all 20-30 battles, I fought approximately the same way: first, I used all the spells on the first turn, then mass slow. At the beginning of the second round, after mass protection with or without Wait (I tried both), the dragons attack, and the unicorns simply blind with their turn. If you want to suggest a more valuable start for the first two turns, I'm all ears. Moreover, the abilities and morale were the deciding factors, which is very important in WoG, i.e., the result of even my poor tactics in the game is not important due to the high morale. For example, even if you play tactically with a stack of the same units, you can lose if you miscalculate the 2nd or 3rd morale of the neutrals in a row (because the front line will be killed) in certain situations.

2. In the very first example, I got a better result with a quick battle than in an online game. There may be many such examples, and it's pointless to look for them because I already have one.
I agree that it's not worth using a quick battle in that situation, but it's impossible to find the boundary of where and with what to use it because one person thinks one way, and another thinks differently. Some will rush, and some won't, in a borderline situation where the indicators will be more comparable. The fact that a quick battle has an impact is obvious to me from experience. If the goal is to find other contradictions, it's not a problem, but it's also not necessary.

3. It doesn't count because it uses magic.

Essentially, your counterarguments 1 and 3 are incorrect, and the 2nd is partially incorrect, but it cannot refute anything in any case.