I actually can't believe there is a discussion on whether or not it's worthwhile to debunk false claims. I'm on an engineering forum, right?
(Wading deeper and deeper into the swamp, against my better judgment...)
The value of debunking bad claims, or maybe we should use "critically analyzing" as a less charged phrase, as an education tool is indisputable: failure analysis is a basic tool in engineering, critical thinking an essential skill for life.
But we need to separate analysis that's technically correct and intellectually honest from "debunking" that has the same problems as, for example, creationist videos (technically wrong and intellectually dishonest).
As for TF and the Hyperloop,
1. The entire edifice of the debunking is based on TF not knowing a basic principle of physical modeling, the square-cube law; (I and many others posted that problem as a comment to the very first video about the Hyperloop; it's also in Shane Killian's first video). The vacuum demo he made with a ball bearing is precisely the type of error that 1st year mechanical engineers are taught to avoid when using physical models.
2. TF's Hyperloop failure mode analyses are wrong because he doesn't seem to know basic compressible fluid mechanics, particular how choked flow works. I can't recall most of the math, it's been decades after all, but the basic principles stuck and therefore I grokked TFs videos were wrong; others have done the math and offered to help, only to be ignored. Or dogpiled by TF's "followers." (Followers as in people who respond to math with "get lost loser, TF rulz.")
3. TF's 'argument from personal incredulity' approach is the same intellectual argument as a creationist's "the eye could never have evolved because it's so complex." It's particularly bad because TF raises problems as unsolvable that have trivial, well-established engineering solutions. (Again, I and many others pointed that out in comments to the videos.)
4. TF uses specious comparisons, like a recent one between the energy necessary to lower the pressure in the tube, 200 MJ, with 50 kg of TNT, to create the impression that the energy is somehow "explosive," instead of 56 kWh of electrical energy (ok, more because of pump efficiency < 100%) or ~5 liters of jet fuel. This is at the level of the creationists' "hurricane in a junkyard" comparison.
I could go on, but the quicksand level is reaching my chest.