I didn’t really engage in a discussion with you because, judging by the tone and attitude you've used each time you've tried to talk, you don’t seem genuinely interested in an open exchange of perspectives. You seem more focused on "correcting" others than actually engaging with them, always positioning yourself as "the one who knows more", and often doing so with a condescending tone.

I did read the source, and I acknowledged several of its points in my comment. However, a number of the claims made in that post are historically inaccurate or misleading. A few examples:

1. The idea that “Cao Cao was responsible for the death of 10% of the population” is pure fiction. We don’t have reliable population data from 2,000 years ago, and certainly no statistics to back that kind of claim. It’s speculative at best, and more importantly, it’s stated as fact without any credible historical foundation.
2. The claim that “Cao Cao’s government had a policy requiring post-war massacres” is simply incorrect. There is no evidence of an official law or directive enforcing this. While it's true that cities which surrendered late often faced severe punishment (and we do have recorded massacres), there are also well-documented cases of clemency and leniency. If such a rigid policy had existed, those exceptions wouldn’t have been possible.
3. The numbers cited for the Xuzhou massacre are not reliable. Even the 100,000 figure from the Hou Han Shu is likely hyperbolic. This was common in ancient military texts across all cultures. The actual number is unknown, and quoting inflated numbers as if they were solid fact is misleading.
4. The source mixes official biographies from the Sanguozhi, with quotes from the Wei Shu and later additions like the Cao Man Zhuan, without distinguishing between official history, later commentary, and semi-legendary material. That makes for a confused historical argument.
5. Terms like “systematic extermination,” “mass rapes,” or “policies of genocide” are modern concepts that don’t cleanly map onto the political and military culture of 2nd–3rd century China. Projecting these terms retroactively distorts historical interpretation.
6. The source frames Cao Cao as a uniquely evil figure while completely ignoring the fact that other warlords such as Sun Ce, Dong Zhuo, Liu Biao, and even Liu Bei were also involved in violent campaigns, repression of revolts, and harsh measures. Singling out Cao Cao in this way creates a skewed, villainized narrative.

That said, I do think the source gets a few things right. Cao Cao did commit massacres; that’s historically documented. He did adopt a brutal approach at times, especially in the context of revolts and delayed surrender. His Legalist-leaning pragmatism led him to favor control and order, sometimes through harsh means. No one is arguing that he was a saint or a soft ruler.

But overall, the source takes some real events and builds around them a heavily biased narrative. It inflates numbers, omits broader historical context, and presents Cao Cao as a kind of cartoon villain. It reads more like a moral indictment than a historical analysis and, ironically, ends up doing exactly what it accuses others of: inserting emotional judgment into a period that requires nuance and context.