That's the problem. The only reason we are having this discussion is because we DON'T think Souma did anything special (and more importantly, not entertaining or satisfying). If that's not your problem or interest, why even argue? Even if you found issue in how I argued it, what's the point if you have no vested interest in the actual meat of the discussion? Well, that's not really important. Just thought I'd mention it because this discussion actually got so many pages.
Beating the opponent doesn't count here. We are judging Souma's actions excluding the judgment. That's only natural because we are questioning the judgment itself. We simply think he shouldn't have won with what he did. We are actually questioning WHY he could even win with a dish that he prepared for the first time against a chef that specializes in beating that kind of thing, if he didn't do anything unique to add on top of it.
Unique might be the better word to describe it (as opposed to special). Souma should've done something no one else in the past has done against Mimasaka to make this a satisfying victory. He didn't.