I'm not sure why those against certain changes think lack of debate is the best option? Personally I like hearing both sides of the discussion, since it can help to clarify the issue, and highlight certain nuances that might change how people think. I also think that if there were more moderate voices speaking up on the side of Famine the changes might not have been as significant. But when the message is "there's no problem so don't touch it", you leave the devs with suggestions of a significant nerf or no nerf, and very little in the middle. Either way, at the end of those conversations, expecting everybody to be in agreement is a bit naive.
As for the next nerf topics, I'm also interested to see how the meta adapts and what pops up now. Personally, I think the Famine nerf has brought it down to a point where it's still one of the strongest options, just not THE option. I'm hopeful that we'll move from 2-3 viable meta defenses to 5-6 now. I also don't really see many significantly overpowered troops like before, so I think the next few changes requests are going to be for buffs, and to widen the meta by promoting troops from below. But we'll see what happens