Absolutely. When you read more into a certain topic of history, especially with academic literature and larger works of writing, there is a lot of debate on various questions and concepts regarding specific historical topics. More can always be said on the matter, especially in regards to specific areas of history, but the very discipline of history itself is built on (amongst other things) the debate which occurs in academia around a certain event. The evolution of those arguments and the debate as a whole is what is often referred to as historiography, or the study of historical writings on a certain topic.

For example, in my area of expertise, a lot of the debate around the First World War is the deceptively simple question of "who do we blame for causing World War 1?". Although most textbooks nowadays would stray away from simply pointing a finger at Germany one country, in the secondary literature and discourse historians have come a long way in their stances. In the immediate aftermath of the war, European historians acknowledged that the war had been a direct cause of Germany, in keeping with the recent end of the war itself and the infamous "War Guilt Clause" of the Treaty of Versailles. After the Second World War however, historians with varying agendas, biases, and sources delved deeper into the question: could Germany alone be blamed for causing a continental war? Fritz Fischer in his landmark work Griff nach der Weltmacht (Germany's Aims in the First World War) argued that yes, the Germans were the sole party to blame for the war, citing their expansionist war aims and the 'war-mongering' of the Kaiser and his War Council in 1914. Gerhard Ritter, another German historian, opposed this thesis and put forth his own interpretation: that the Serbians and Austro-Hungarians dragged Germany and the other European powers into what was otherwise a Balkan conflict in the summer of 1914.

On top of all that, we have A.J.P Taylor's famous (but less impactful) "War by Timetable" theory, in which he argues that as a result of the highly sensitive and competitive militarism developing in Europe, the general staffs of all the to-be combatant nations had developed mobilisation plans which, once started, could not be stopped. He argued that, rather than acting as a deterrent to stop the conflict, the plans actually were the driving force behind declarations of war and invasion.

There are plenty of other works and theories of the debate surrounding the "responsible party" of World War 1, but now in the 21st century we find that there is, for the most part, a general consensus amongst historians in the field that although every nation shared some portion of the blame for the Great War, the Germans had a "special responsibility" for the conflict's escalation.

That long example goes to show just how common (and long-lasting) debates can exist within historical circles, and of course it is just one example of quite literally hundreds on all matter of historical questions, topics, events, and persons. Debate is a natural facet of historical writing, and it is arguably as a result of that debate that history can "progress" as a discipline within specific areas.