Which nobody is arguing against. Having a more capable camera (whether higher usable ISO, greater resolution, or whatever) does not guarantee a photographer will capture better images. Incompetence can trump any technological advancement. But in competent hands, a new or improved capability can be used to do things previously impossible.
The counter-argument that an enhanced capability cheapens the result by making it easier to achieve is of course bullshit. Taken to its logical confusion, we should all go back to pinhole cameras and expose our images on hand-coated glass plates like Real Photographers®. The truth is that technical advances raise the bar of what a competent photographer can achieve, and anyone who is content to merely do what he has always done the same way he always has deserves to be left behind.
Put very diplomatically. I agree with this but would like to state it in a different manner.
First, higher ISO capability is a double edged sword: Now the photography has to think about how much light he or she needs, instead of simply not getting the image. In other words, you now have the ability to stop action in low light, but should you stop it, if not, how much blur "should" one have for a particular shot? Or, if you're shooting environmental portraits, you need to decide whether or not the shot would look better with more ambient light (higher ISO) or less ambient light and more flash. If you don't have the option of ISO then you default to flash, and you have no choice in the matter, easier yes, more creative, no.
This makes a "photographer" have to think much more about the artistic aspect of what he or she is trying to create. Most people never understand light, and the best they can do is set up a fabricated light pattern using studio lights or use auto on camera flash and point and pray. Yes, they can get good exposure and sharp images, but that's about it.
So you can see that the ISO thing cuts both ways: Amateurs calling themselves "photographers" is laughable, but so too is a photographer acting like an amateur--just in a different manner.
The same thing goes for technology, as Johnathan pointed out. When photography was created, artists thought it would put them out of business. When the 35mm was created, same thing. When auto exposure was created, same thing.
One thing that bothers me is that a really good Photoshop expert can put together a stupendous landscape shot comprised of several average shots taken in different parts of the world, composite them, and you'd never know it (such as taking the cloud structure of one shot and laying it over the dunes of another.) But I'm ok with that.
Question regarding whether or not technology cheapens the medium are legitimate, but how many people would be doing photography today if all we had was tintype? I'd suspect that some of us would just not be aroused by tintype or its process, and thus would find other ways to express ourselves.
Last, it doesn't matter what we think or want, technology will continue to change everything. Our only option, as Johnathan pointed out, is adapt to it.