With minimal tweeks that would have been a good change. Batman should want to end Superman if Bats thought Dupes turned out Bat. That would suit Batmans' manipulative streak just fine. However I can see him seeing a serious moral cause. Batman is serious like that. Superman being able to beat Batman would be a believable storyline as well.

You are suggesting consistent powers and abilities the heroes are meant to have? How would that ever work in conjunction with such lazy plot writing?
I know, right?
Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur.

I should've specified that this plot point means that the entire story of the film would be re-arranged so that the rest of the plot can connect with it. Batman would come out as psycho in the subjective way, but not in the actuality. He'd seem as such only to audiences and Superman. It would be only pretense, as oppose to him being actually murderous psycho.
It would be an interesting direction to take the story in that case but we are looking at a major rewrite here, but it could possibly work with extensive rewriting perhaps even doing something along the lines of 'The Game' obviously you would have to do it in a way where Lex henchmen were not in it and while originally having us believe that Batman killed people we would need to have a flashbacks to show us how he cleverly didn't. Still that sounds like wishful thinking when we look at how flawed and limited the writing in BvS actually was and a bit like saying if only they could have written an intelligent and clever script instead of what we got, quite frankly I think it is beyond them.
Yeah. Superman was given the ability to fly from Ellesmere Island to Metropolis in under 10 seconds (not to mention knowing that Lois was in trouble, in Metropolis), and Batman was given the ability to be a brilliant detective.
You are suggesting consistent powers and abilities the heroes are meant to have? How would that ever work in conjunction with such lazy plot writing?
To make a great film you need three things - the script, the script and the script -Alfred Hitchcock

Yeah. Superman was given the ability to fly from Ellesmere Island to Metropolis in under 10 seconds (not to mention knowing that Lois was in trouble, in Metropolis), and Batman was given the ability to be a brilliant detective.
But when it really mattered, both those abilities were removed. Because of the fight. The fact that those abilities were removed, was what set up the fight. Batman couldn't put two and two together and realize that they were being set up, even though
every single thing
pointed towards it - and Superman couldn't rescue his mom himself, even though past feats tell us that it would be a simple matter.
Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur.

I can't disagree that the general notion that not making Batman dumb would improve the movie.

awwwww Joby
I know that you just clowning around, but can you factually prove that I'm him?
You know, when you put half-naked gay men as your avatar, and you sent kissing emojis to random guys, people might start question your sexuality. (Just a thought, you know.)

As you can see, Flamboyant_Little_Fairy and his pal responded to this post while insulting me
awwwww Joby don't be such a sore loser. Insulting goes both ways; and you know all about that.
"I see you try, I see you fail
Some things will never change"

I have no idea who you consider to be on that list and to be honest I don't really care if you reply to me or not anyway
As you can see, Flamboyant_Little_Fairy and his pal responded to this post while insulting me without actually saying something regarding the topic. That is why I put this observation.
It is an interesting alternative take you suggest for the film however the following problems instantly spring to mind. If Batman was treating this simply as a test then it still does not excuse him from murdering Lex henchmen in the Batmobile scene, what if Superman instead of just warning Batman to stop actually decided to hand him into the police? That seems to be not only a very reckless risk on Batman part but also a callous waste of life even if they were working for Lex. If Superman did kill Batman a known vigilantly and given that it was known that Batman branding was getting people killed and it is very probably that it was known he killed people in the Batmobile scene would humanity as a whole even care Superman could easily have passed it off as stopping someone who needed to be stopped or at the very least self defence, this is actually a flaw in Lex plan in the original plot as well. Still an overall interesting alternative plot idea but I think that Batman killing the henchmen just to maintain the out of control image would be very extreme and would portray that Batman is not actually a good guy.
I should've specified that this plot point means that the entire story of the film would be re-arranged so that the rest of the plot can connect with it. Batman would come out as psycho in the subjective way, but not in the actuality. He'd seem as such only to audiences and Superman. It would be only pretense, as oppose to him being actually murderous psycho.

P.S. Flamboyant Analist and his pals wont get any response from me if they will start their gay-psycho conversations once again in this post.
I have no idea who you consider to be on that list and to be honest I don't really care if you reply to me or not anyway
It is an interesting alternative take you suggest for the film however the following problems instantly spring to mind. If Batman was treating this simply as a test then it still does not excuse him from murdering Lex henchmen in the Batmobile scene, what if Superman instead of just warning Batman to stop actually decided to hand him into the police? That seems to be not only a very reckless risk on Batman part but also a callous waste of life even if they were working for Lex. If Superman did kill Batman a known vigilantly and given that it was known that Batman branding was getting people killed and it is very probably that it was known he killed people in the Batmobile scene would humanity as a whole even care Superman could easily have passed it off as stopping someone who needed to be stopped or at the very least self defence, this is actually a flaw in Lex plan in the original plot as well. Still an overall interesting alternative plot idea but I think that Batman killing the henchmen just to maintain the out of control image would be very extreme and would portray that Batman is not actually a good guy.
To make a great film you need three things - the script, the script and the script -Alfred Hitchcock

TL;DR
P.S. Flamboyant Analist and his pals wont get any response from me if they will start their gay-psycho conversations once again in this post.
Triggered easily to failure.
There, there Joby.
"I see you try, I see you fail
Some things will never change"

Is this the person to which you are referring right now?:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur71452111/
If it is, then even if you are intentionally trying to associate people who you don't like with his persona, couldn't you find someone else to point your finger at? Considering that he has Ben Affleck's Batman as his avatar, I guess it's safe to say that he the fan of Ben Affleck's Batman. Now, sweetheart, I know that rational thinning is quite hard for you (and your friends especially), but at least tr to understand this: If I was this guy, or this guy was me, why would I make such long post in which I: A) Criticize Batman v Superman (the movie which he loves). B) Criticize Ben Affleck's Batman? Didn't you think that it might be stupid to accuse me of being him while I clearly have different preferences in comparison to him, let alone the fact that our speech expressions are different, to say the least? I know you like being stupid, but there are limits to everything.

since you know that I ain't that joby guy (or girl, or whatever the hell he is), since I have just criticized Batman v Superman and Ben Affleck's Batman - two things that this guy seems to love.
Perhaps
the mirror has two faces
?
"You are salvage, the flotsam of the void, the property of the Midas Foundation. My property."

really?
that's scary
damn. i must stay away from him
thanks for the advice, sir
ORE GA NIPPONJIN JANAI!

Be very careful around mh there, he's got a hunger for "hammers" and may just decide you'll do in a pinch.
You're welcome.

Don't be angry, sweetheart. After all, the fact that you and your pals (or whoever the hell these angry ninnies are to you) started verbal battle with me on this post, further proves how irrational and aggressive you all are.
sweetheart ?
eewww again don't drag me into your delusion
there's no verbal battle here
people just simply laughing at you, joby
ORE GA NIPPONJIN JANAI!

So what you're saying is you wanna get cornholed by Thor.
You're welcome.

wow i called you joby and you answer
why you didn't try to deny it anymore ?
Because why I should be denying what was already proven to be wrong, pal? This "joby" personage has different preferences than I and he speaks differently. I don't even have to point out why I'm not him and he is not Me.
eeewwww what a creepy delusion you got there
could you try to not drag other into your delusion ?
Don't be angry, sweetheart. After all, the fact that you and your pals (or whoever the hell these angry ninnies are to you) started verbal battle with me on this post, further proves how irrational and aggressive you all are.

wow i called you joby and you answer
why you didn't try to deny it anymore ?
So you're not angry that I humiliated you in front of everybody without using vulgar language and insults like you did?
eeewwww what a creepy delusion you got there
could you try to not drag other into your delusion ?
ORE GA NIPPONJIN JANAI!

why would i angry at you for that, joby ?
So you're not angry that I humiliated you in front of everybody without using vulgar language and insults like you did?
besides my reply to that poster is a question
and i my country a question is not considered as agreeing to something
Your question was then supplemented with the sentence "makes sense." Therefore, it means that you agreed with him.

why would i angry at you for that, joby ?
besides my reply to that poster is a question
and i my country a question is not considered as agreeing to something
ORE GA NIPPONJIN JANAI!

OP is joby ?
well. that's explain a lot
Are you still angry at me because I proved to you that rationality prevails above blatant insults? Also, I think here you just agreeing with Flamboyant Rapist just for the sake of it, since you know that I ain't that joby guy (or girl, or whatever the hell he is), since I have just criticized Batman v Superman and Ben Affleck's Batman - two things that this guy seems to love.

Damn, Joby. You are so easily Triggered.
OP is joby ?
well. that's explain a lot
ORE GA NIPPONJIN JANAI!

P.S. Flamboyant Analist and his pals wont get any response from me if they will start their gay-psycho conversations once again in this post.
Damn, Joby. You are so easily Triggered.
Must be the closet flower in you
"I see you try, I see you fail
Some things will never change"

Instead of having Batman to be the one who is going to make the final strike, it would be better (and more true) if Superman was the one who would defeat Batman and had the final strike to make. He would be standing in front of Batman who lays on the ground with his armor destroyed while Superman is ready to finish the job. But, he would refuse to do that. Therefore, hed prove Batman that he is not what he thought he might be. Therefore, Batman actually comes out as a brilliant mastermind he should be and he becomes Supermans ally in a less shoehorned way.
That's a very good point! Have Superman be active, have him do something to prove he's a good guy. Not just happening to have a mother.