Many scholars are not interested in debunking alternative theories. They don't "waste" their time in such a useless task. They prefer to discuss and refute other "orthodox" theories.
Only a few people spend some time and effort to debunk alternative visions, because they don't want Archaeology fall into a sort of "mystery show" or an Indiana Jones' movie, and I respect this attitude. But some of their books or sites are really ridiculous, they don't bring sound ideas for a debate, only hostile and satirical arguments in most cases, often with ironical references to little green martians and so on.
Their opinion does not help confused audience, and of course you don't need to convince those who are already convinced (the scholar community). So this kind of "debunking service" is not welcome in my opinion. Perhaps debunking is not the proper activity. Everyone should know and compare the other side's arguments with free spirit. Of course I recognize that some alternative visions are not well built (in some cases they haven't done a good research homework), but professional experts have the tendency of simplifying alternative theories, only refusing a part of the argument and then denying the rest of it.
But things are not that easy. Complex matters cannot have easy answers. If there is a little suspicion of anomaly or distortion, researchers should study and review their hypothesis further. I think scholars have nothing to fear in this challenge: they should prove their hypothesis without doubt or change their minds and accept to study other scenarios. They have the knowledge, they have the methodology, they have the tradition... they should have the initiative, the "momentum", and no matter if some authors just want to sell books.
Otherwise, they might lose the battle.