I wish we had a dozen genocide scholars waiting on standby who could jump on every instance and provide fantastic, thorough rebuttals and nip even the slightest hint of denialism in the bud the moment it shows up.
But we can't, and there is a very real danger in denialist stuff being left up unrebutted. That, in the end, is what deniers hope for. They know they can't win a fair debate. Their talking points have been rebutted innumerable times, and there have been little additions to them in decades anyways. They essentially rely on deceptive presentation that might sound plausible to someone who doesn't know the topic, but would crumble with even a light prodding by an expert. They aren't trying to win a debate, they are trying to win by exhaustion. They are counting that the people who can handle those questions don't have the time or energy to do it every time, or to keep replying as long as the denier is willing to keep posting, if a chain starts up.