Well, in all fairness here, let's note that they were "debunked" when psychology changed from an art of philosophy into a science, c the behaviorists.  Freud wasn't attempting a scientific explanation of the mind as much as a pragmatic explanation of the functions of the mind.  There isn't literally an Id in your mind, but there are several functions, et al which combine to produce something very close in nature to that.

Further, you cannot simply say, "Freud and Jung have been debunked" and not argue my point off of that.  That's ad hominum, and comparable to saying something like, "Jung was a Nazi, therefor, your arguement is completely false."  

Finally, you attack my arguement from a different frame of reference than I do.  It is obvious through your perjorative use of "theory" that you are a strict empiricist, which is a complete 180 from my frame of reference as a rationalist.  There's a definite odor of the super-annoying scientific-ego in your comment, one that doesn't construct anything.

And, the default is not "evolutionary."  If by default, you mean the average, which is a bad interpretation, you would find it is more likely a strong base of behaviorism, with dashes of epigenetic and cultural.  For a base read of neo-Freudiasm, read Erik Erikson.