It's easy to sit back and say that, but I can almost guarantee that if you actually follow this up with a set of opinions about what stack / architecture / approach is easiest to debug and change, you will find yourself back in the argument with the rest of us stupid people.
I believe there's a lot more variables than "how easy is something to debug and change". The issue is that how easy something is to debug and change is very contextual to the point in the lifetime of an application, the industry the application will live in, and the changing requirements as the application grows in complexity.
Even the simplest interpretation of your statement leads to considerable argument. Often the ease of change and the ease of debugging are at odds with one another, where a highly dynamic approach might make change a breeze, but make debugging more difficult.
I believe there's a lot more variables than "how easy is something to debug and change". The issue is that how easy something is to debug and change is very contextual to the point in the lifetime of an application, the industry the application will live in, and the changing requirements as the application grows in complexity.
Even the simplest interpretation of your statement leads to considerable argument. Often the ease of change and the ease of debugging are at odds with one another, where a highly dynamic approach might make change a breeze, but make debugging more difficult.