It would be interesting to read a review of Debt by some other economist. I don’t think this can be settled by quoting DeLong or Graeber, considering the bitterness of this feud.
I work at a large institutional investment firm and have read David’s book. He adds to the conversation around debt in unique and thought provoking ways. For me, that’s what matters about the book.
Unfortunately most academic economists are not going to touch it. It's a sprawling, highly polemic work by a marxist anthropologist. Much of the book focuses on various moral issues portraying history as a sequence of just and unjust acts, oppressors and oppressed, and finally there are some call for coordinated debt forgiveness.
That's not really inviting for academic economists that need to focus on quantitative or experimental research and would get nothing by wading into these debates.
So those with economic training who do touch it will be outside Academia or on the margins. Here are some:
The general consensus of these reviews is "man, he gets a lot of stuff wrong, and I don't agree with the central thesis, but boy what rich examples, and interesting insights are in this book."
The reason deLong waded in is that he has a very promiscuous mind and likes to think about Soviet tank strategy in World War 2, financial markets, and public policy. And he shares all those ruminations on his blog. So he'll pick it up, but he has tenure and (apparently) lots of leisure time. There aren't many others in the same position.
Graeber was certainly not Marxist. And the whole nature of his new book and the rest of his work is the opposite of the idea of portraying history as a "sequence" of acts at all let alone defining them in some just/unjust binary.