I am NOT supporting bunk
Dear Max: We do understand that you are NOT supporting any of the bunk that sensible people take great pleasure in debunking. We simply disagree with you when you say that it is possible to "debunk" something which is not "bunk" in the first place.

One can't even CLAIM to be debunking something which has no bunk in it without misusing the word "debunk".

If I devise a machine to suck all the oxygen out of a molecule of hydrogen, I may claim that I am deoxygenating hydrogen. I may even believe that I am deoxygenating hydrogen. But, since there is no oxygen in hydrogen, I cannot describe the process as "deoxygenation" without misusing the word deoxygenation.

Its like sticking a "Mustard" label on a jar of blueberry jelly. It just ain't so.

The word "deoxygenation" has a specific meaning. It means removing oxygen. It doesn't mean trying to remove oxygen. It means actually removing it. So it is with debunking. Where there is no bunk, there can be no debunking.

Dear Max: I think we are all agreed that debunkery is a commendable act practised upon a sham. (That's why we have "Bunko Squads".) Since the truth and serious science can never be dismissed as a "sham", it is not possible to "debunk" either one.

In sum, "No sham, no bunk. No bunk, no debunkery."

We know that conscientous people misuse the word "debunk". That's how this thread got started in the first place. But one cannot cite evidence of misuse in high places as proof that that misuse is correct.