I'm late into this thread, but I have read the posts and I now propose to debunk...???$%&#
Surely, in order to debunk something effectively rather than just getting up on your hind legs and saying "I don't think the Moon landings happened" or "I don't think the Holocaust occurred" you need evidence. In order to consider something thoroughly debunked, that evidence would need to have been absorbed and accepted by the majority of people, i.e. the majority has come around to your way of thinking through logic rather than persuasion.
You can't say that "So-and-so got up last night and debunked <choose your subject>". So-and-so might have attacked whatever it was, but it can't be considered to have been debunked at that point. Simply saying so isn't enough.
On the same basis, you couldn't debunk the idea that God exists unless you can present convincing evidence that no such being does exist. That appears to be unlikely. Debunking the opposite view - that God does exist -suffers similarly. Since theism/atheism is a matter of belief, it is incapable of being debunked. You may convince people, through rhetoric, that God doesn't exist, but you still haven't debunked the idea of God. There's no objective evidence.
