Why?
Serious question. Do you mean this morally (like, "you gave your word"), practically ("if consumers defaulted in high numbers, it would cause economic ruin"), or something else?
As Graeber points out, many ancient societies had a notion of jubilee years, where all outstanding debts were forgiven and debt-servitude eliminated. There doesn't seem to be a fundamental reason why personal debt should be somehow fixed.
Or did you mean that all just practically: in the US (??), one ought to avoid debt, because it's hard to escape in the current legal regime? (Which I'm not entirely sure I agree with; personal bankruptcy is quite common, but, sure, it wouldn't be my first choice.)
As a lender, if I expected a debt jubilee then I would stop lending. But I suspect that was the purpose. It's interesting that most religions have an aversion to debt.
Yes, practically, Graeber is not suggesting consumers go out and take on debt willy nilly. He's suggesting rather that we stop moralizing the issue of debt.
The religious connotations of debt are more subtle and surprising than that, at least in Graeber's telling. But I'll leave that to him. The book, by the way, is free: https://archive.org/details/Debt-The_First_5000_Years. ;)
Even if ancient accounts are accurate then is there evidence such debt forgiveness was carried out ? And if so how consistently?
Sort of like the current debate on college debt.
I strongly disagree with this. Personal debts aren't like government debt, they need to be repaid. The interest rates on personal loans and credit cards are high.
Being indebted closes off opportunities that are available to people with savings. It enslaves you to your job.
Note this has very little to do with being rich or poor. Anybody can spend more than they earn. In fact the poorest need to be most careful because they are the ones most exposed to usurious interest rates.