Byzantine iconoclasm ran in two waves, roughly 726 to 787 and again from 814 to 843, and it was not a debate. Images were destroyed on a large scale, and their defenders were exiled, imprisoned, mutilated and in some cases killed.
The argument against images was serious and is worth stating as its holders held it. The second commandment forbids graven images. Christianity had defined itself against the image-worship of its neighbours. Whatever the theological refinements, ordinary people plainly were praying to boards, and the distinction between the image and what it depicted was collapsing in practice. Islamic and Jewish neighbours made the charge directly, and it stung.
The defence, worked out chiefly by John of Damascus and later Theodore the Studite, met it on doctrinal ground rather than on sentiment. If God took a body, then God became depictable, and refusing to depict him amounts to denying that the incarnation was real. The prohibition on images belonged to a period before that happened. To this was added a distinction of terms: proskynesis, the veneration paid to an image, is different in kind from latreia, the worship owed to God alone, and the honour paid to an image passes to what it depicts.
The Second Council of Nicaea in 787 accepted that argument, and the final restoration in 843 is still commemorated each year as the Triumph of Orthodoxy. The consequence is that in Eastern Christianity the icon is not decoration and its defence is not a matter of taste. It was settled at the level of doctrine, at considerable cost, and Orthodox theology has treated it as settled ever since.