I don't believe that there is much of debate about Calculus today. Major universities continue to push the overly rigorous vision embodied in texts like Stewart or Hughes Hallet. The AB/BC Calculus curricula have seen little to no change in decades.
It seems lost on many arguing for Stats over Calc, that they are one and the same. Statistics developed from Physics and Astronomy using many of the typical ideas from first semester calculus. Despite this architecture, too often we find people arguing for statistics or calculus, or even stats over calculus.
I am not suggesting that when you are introducing measures of center and spread in 9th grade algebra class you need to fully develop centers of mass in the language of calculus. I am acknowledging that historically, statistics was developed using the tools of calculus. All this is to say that the stats vs. calc division is an imaginary one that is reinforced rather than remedied by the arbitrary battle lines so often drawn in teaching and learning mathematics that wish to favor a certain stylistic application of the tools of calculus.
There are many examples of groups who have tried to take the stats over calc path. A large example would be the Statway work from Carnegie.
I would argue that the discrete and continuous should have a presence in all mathematics coursework; particularly the undergraduate and high school curriculum. I don't fully agree that the CCSS is a step backwards here, as there is an explicit effort to include functions with discrete domains throughout the high school work with functions. To improve this wedding, the CCSS should have included the matrix and vector concepts throughout rather than as optional additions.
In a calculus class, if we are discussing integration we should include centers of mass and understand how this plays a role in Pearson's r. These ideas have also emerged as important in the field of machine learning and classification algorithms like k-means. Students can understand remedial examples of these topics at much earlier levels.
When it comes to differentiation we should use first difference to motivate a conceptual understanding. Optimization lends itself to such an interpretation, move to the limiting case to discuss continuous situations. Now we can engage with Nash equilibrium and with an understanding of differentiation with respect to a given variable we can derive least squares formulas for linear, polynomial, and exponential situations using our knowledge of minimizing functions.
I suppose what I'm arguing is that it should not be a question of one or the other but our efforts should target unification rather than division. Discrete mathematics deserves its place in the curriculum but I don't believe this needs to be at the expense of the continuous. Instead, these domains reinforce one another and would support a broader learning experience for students.
My favorite writing on this subject would be Felix Klein's Elementary Mathematics from an Advanced Standpoint books I and II or any of Tom Apostol's writing on Calculus including his textbooks. Klein argues beautifully for a larger role of the difference calculus in the curriculum. Also, Leibniz's History and Origins is a great read where he describes the motivation of his work through sums and differences from the familiar Pascal's triangle.