What discussion can really be had though?
"Why wasn't Bronn roasted by the flames?"
"Because he jumped out of the way."
"But the flames were HUGE!"
"Not huge enough to burn him."
"Grrr! I'm not satisfied!"
I mean...what do you want? A diagram?
I want better writing, I suppose? The show didn't have to rely on spectacle and unbelievable coincidences in order to keep you on the edge of your seat. That's precisely why I loved it. It didn't require leaps of logic and it kept you on the edge of your seat through good writing, foreshadowing, and great scenes. It didn't need to force tension on us through nearly impossible spectacle.
You're right though, there isn't much to argue about this. I guess people like me and the person that originally brought up the complaint don't want people to make stuff up and then shrug when we show it's not really true. That doesn't get us anywhere either.
The conversation actually went something like this:
"Why wasn't Bronn burned?"
"Because it's fantasy!"
"That's not an excuse. This fantasy showed the effects of flames"
"The flames weren't that wide."
"Yes they were, here's a picture"
"OH WELL WHAT DO YOU WANT!?!?!"
Probably to not have
that silly conversation where your only goal is to make excuses for things despite evidence?