Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page, there's an article on the CSICOP website by Mick West (of Metabunk) entitled "In Defense of Debunkers":
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/sh..._debunkers
West writes that he once asked James Randi why he didn't describe himself as a debunker, and Randi answered that it wasn't a neutral term because it implied prejudice about the phenomenon in question, so he preferred to describe himself as a sceptic or investigator.
Bur West argues that it's not bad to prejudge "the paranormal" because there's already a large body of evidence that paranormal claims don't hold up. (I find it's often not very clear whether people include experimental parapsychology in "the paranormal" - it doesn't seem to be discussed very much at Metabunk.) He thinks the crucial distinction between scepticism and debunking is that debunkers communicate their conclusions to the public, and therefore he encourages people to be debunkers.
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/sh..._debunkers
West writes that he once asked James Randi why he didn't describe himself as a debunker, and Randi answered that it wasn't a neutral term because it implied prejudice about the phenomenon in question, so he preferred to describe himself as a sceptic or investigator.
Bur West argues that it's not bad to prejudge "the paranormal" because there's already a large body of evidence that paranormal claims don't hold up. (I find it's often not very clear whether people include experimental parapsychology in "the paranormal" - it doesn't seem to be discussed very much at Metabunk.) He thinks the crucial distinction between scepticism and debunking is that debunkers communicate their conclusions to the public, and therefore he encourages people to be debunkers.