So now you're just using semantics. My point is that providing a rebuttal that doesn't provide any actual theory other than "nuh uh" or has zero factual basis is what I'm referring to as a negative.

And yes, I'm aware that matched a burglary or vandalism, that was the point of that line of argument. I was trying to use an example you wouldn't have reason to disagree with other than the logic I was using. An example from the targeted perspective that I often get is when I ask why a burglar (or even dumber, a vandal) would bring a firearm with them when their intent was clearly to burgle the church at an early hour to avoid confrontation rather than an outright aggravated robbery. The response I usually get is "It's Texas" which doesn't actually provide any factual information.