AFAIK this is like the second(?) time I've posted it on Holla Forums, and I've never seen anyone else post it before. The first time I posted it, the arguments against it were formulated as follows: no, he's not a moralist; he doesn't say he is! The point being, of course, that he's accused of being a moralist precisely because he fails to bring forth a proper materialist origin-point not just of debt, but of anything that precedes, implies and enables something like debt. If you're internalized Marx to a basic degree, it's a very meh text.
Most of Graeber's work can be seen as building on Turner's (Terry) anthropological Marxism: applying the method seen Capital (value category, fetishism, etc.) to "anthropological economies", instead of the Marxist method which is incredibly structural: schema of productive modes.
Graeber in Debt and also his Toward an anthropological theory of value: The false coin of our own dreams, are really more like a book with a bunch of articles in it, yet as I said with this sort of Turnerian fusing of his method plus a realism that is critical. William Pietz, Mauss, Marilyn Strathern, et cetera, creatively applying it to Iroquois, Maori and other ancient societies, and criticizing political economists and other anthros.
I'd say read Turner's it's actually Marxist (less accessible than anything Graeber's ever written, tho still good). For anthropology (the modern discipline), I never thought I could be interested without the background, but it's surprisingly decent. Not Debt, but the other text of his I mentioned, is the best Graeber's done, though sadly overlooked.
But I'm overall fair, as I've said that other time and ITT: he does some of the more worthwhile activism, has good empirics and commentary on current events.