I think the OP's point is that a lot of people who think they are debunking aren't very good at it, and end up dismissing instead.
I realized just how low quality most debunkings are last year when I started wondering what happens if an uncertain person specifically searches for [$idea debunking] on Google. I chose "5G causes Coronavirus" as the idea in question. Sure enough, a whole pile of articles claiming to be debunkings came up in the results. The problems became apparent when reading them. Some of these debunkings were barely more coherent than the idea they were trying to debunk and would be very unconvincing. Almost always these were written by professional journalists. I did eventually find one that actually took the reader seriously and was free of obvious contradictions and errors but it was written by a physicist.
Common problems are:
- A belief that simply repeating the words of the journalist's chosen academic or corporate spokesperson is the same thing as a debunking. If someone is finding your article in the first place, it means they already have doubt about the establishment's view of something so simply repeating it can't convince them. This tactic is especially useless because basically any idea no matter how crazy it sounds will have academics and credentialed people who openly support it and campaign for it, so it turns into "my experts are more expert than your experts", which is less convincing still.
- An extremely off-putting and arrogant tone of the form "I can't believe I have to write about this, but ..."
- Articles that contain internal contradictions or are written in a manner implying the debunker doesn't understand the topic themselves. One debunking I read started by asserting that although 5G uses millimeter waves, such waves are completely harmless and only crazy deluded people could possibly think they were dangerous. Half way through the article it started talking about military experiments that beamed mm wave at enemy soldiers to cripple them with pain. No mention of strength or energy consumption was made anywhere, apparently without noticing that "used in weapons" and "harmless" are mutually exclusive without much more detailed information about why some are harmless and others aren't.
- Debunkings that aren't actually debunkings but rather, explanations of why $idea is true but good. One example of this is the (no longer available) section of the EU Commission website that claimed to be a database of debunkings of "myths" about the EU in the British press. When I spot checked some one day it turned out a large chunk were like this, maybe the majority, i.e. "Newspaper X reported Y. This is true but is justified by our policy goals". Well, that's a retort in a debate but not a debunking of a myth, and when that happens it makes people lower the perceived weight of the word "debunk".
These kinds of problem are so common it left me with a much greater understanding of why even some ideas seem to grow faster and further than you would intuitively expect.