Then my argument would be Aaron cocked up the writing. The point is that if they meant for Azula to be a normal, albeit troubled kid, they fumbled it. She presents pretty much all the traits necessary for psychopathy.
1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors
2. Deceitfulness (1b, ANT—Deceitfulness)
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead (2b, DIS—Impulsivity)
4. Irritability and aggressiveness (1d, NEGAFF—Hostility)
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others (2c, DIS—Risk Taking)
6. Consistent irresponsibility (2a, DIS—Irresponsibility)
7. Lack of remorse (1c, ANT—Callousness)
That's taken directly from the DSM. She exhibits literally all of those traits in spades. Also, that's not how an argument is rendered invalid. Mistaking one writer for another means that sentence was in error but the overall point still stands. Not sure why you thought that was an effective rebuttal.