I think you're describing the ideal situation. Was E. O. Wilson less a scientist because he published "On Human Nature" and was considered "debunked" by the likes of Gould and campus radicals? Was Blondlot considered to have been debunked by Wood because N-rays were imaginary? Were Pons and Fleischman debunked?

It well may be that "debunk" is incorrectly and over used.

k