What makes debt different is that it is premised on an assumption of equality. To be a slave, or lower caste, is to be intrinsically inferior. These are relations of unadulterated hierarchy. In the case of debt, we are talking about two individuals who begin as equal parties to a contract. Legally, at least as far as the contract is concerned, they are the same.
debt potentially affects everyone in a society while slavery does not though, so this feels like a straw man argument framed through morality vs the incentives of broader populations. no benefit to you to stand up for slaves historically while demanding debt not be placed upon you is clearly self serving. it takes a movement of ethics for a group to fight on behalf of another vs themselves. see: all of history.
