The result is always undesirable to someone. It's the consequence of representative democracy. You can't please all the people.
This is true, however the consequences extend past hurt feelings, whenever the government does something "for someone" it must do something to someone else, thus expanding itself past what it was ever meant to be, stopping that is a just case for a fillibuster when a majority takes the populist approach in a democratic republic. Many of the "changes" we have suffered in the past century or so have created an ignorance of the constitution and it's founding principles, many times this was done by hiding behind majority opinion or "political capitol" stopping that becomes necessary at times.
And can you give me an example when the debate was one-sided?
The second stimulus comes to mind, federal gun control regulation at times in our history, AMA rules changes at the beginning of the twentieth century, the creation of Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac, upon others.
And what about all the times when there was a vigorous debate and a party filibustered anyways? Or what about when a party didn't debate, they just filibustered? I'd say those happen much more often than the filibuster being used to further actual debate.
And they are all legitimate reasons for fillibustering, as I've stated before, sometimes they are used to do good and sometimes they are used for the wrong reasons, this doesn't change the fact that the fillibuster exists and is right in line with the idea of slowing or stopping an out of control legislative or government expansion.