Normally I would just downvote this kind of comment and this kind of article and move on. However because of your earnestness in educating people on the subject, I will not do that. Instead I will explain what is wrong with it and why it deserves the downvotes.

Quite simply the dbdebunked article is hard to read. Too hard to read in fact. It isn't hard to read because the content is complicated, but rather because of the organization of the content is poor. It starts off with a call to action to read another article and immediately follows it up with what appears to be somehow related but poorly referenced block quote. There was actually several triply nested quotes in there amongst other writing smells. Taking the time to edit is important.

When an author is writing for an audience it is their duty to be understood. Having the audience exert extra energy in reading because the author is unwilling to exert energy in writing is inefficient.

There might be something brilliant in the dbdebunked article, but I am unwilling to puzzle it out or subject others to it.