I linked it because the points I will make will almost certainly be the same as that work and the points against it will almost certainly be the same, the debate has genuinely stagnated.
The chief point being: God Incarnated so it is possible to represent Him in an image, for the Law says "do not make an image for you saw none on the mountain" but the Lord Jesus is "the image of the invisible God" and "we have seen His glory" so it is just in depicting Him due to this. The work begins this way also. It is impossible to depict a formless thing, but He in fact "came in the form of a servant" and so we can now do so, so this underpinning of the prohibition does not apply to the practice of the Church.
The Law also says "do this so that you do not lift your eyes toward heaven and observe the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of the heaven, and be led astray and bow down to them and serve them," so that the aim of the Law is forbidding idolatry, which is simply putting the creature in place of the Creator as St. Paul gives in Romans. But is it idolatry in itself to depict something (and let's just be specific and say carve it or make a sculpture, for people oppose that the most, and if that is defeated then the rest follows) that is in Heaven, or on Earth, or under the Earth? No, for God commanded that the bronze snake (on the Earth) be depicted, and the Cherubim (in Heaven) be depicted. So it is not intrinsically evil to do so, provided it be not be idolatry, which the Church does not do with her images, putting the creature in place of the Creator.
Another simply being that due to the example of Scripture it is clear that not all bowing is idolatry, like Jacob bowing to Esau, or Bathsheba to Solomon, the brothers to Joseph, and so on, and no one would say that they put them in the place of the Creator by this act. Really this point is a cultural thing I believe since many in our era aren't used to bowing to people but the Church was born (both in the OT and NT) out of a cultural that was used to bowing to honorable persons, even entirely separate from idolatry (I am not considering paganism here).
To me these three points alone refute every argument of the iconoclasts, but if you want more (the work is simple and easy) you can read it for more. I will summarize a couple of other points:
Scripture by it's nature, especially concerning the Gospel, produces images in the mind. Consider the Crucifixion, the Birth of Jesus, His being scourged, Him preaching, the feeding of the 5000 and the 4000, the shipwreck of St. Paul, St. Paul's imprisonment, the Seven-Eyed Lamb of Revelation, the beauty of the lovers in the Song, the elaborate descriptions of the glory of the Levitical priesthood, and so on. When we read images are given to our mind because in our current state we are sense-bound, as God Himself gives us all these images it is absurd to say that a depiction of them is idolatry, not to mention when idolatry (defined above) isn't done there is no idolatry just like there is no murder where no murder is done.
And another which is simple but not valuable to all since they depart from the Tradition, is this: it is the Tradition of the Church, which carries weight, and without many things about the Gospels and such would not be known (authorship, locations, etc), and due to that consequence and many other false ones it should not be rejected. Supporting this I would draw on St. Vincent one of my favorites who says:
"Some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Universal interpretation."
Like I said more information is available in that book by St. John of Damascus. Pretty much every discussion between the iconoclasts and the Church will be some variation of these points and not much has changed in all these centuries (St. John of Damascus died in 749AD).
