A contrary opinion in the same journal from different authors is just as intriguing, if not more so. It clearly indicates that the topic is still up for vigorou

A contrary opinion in the same journal from different authors is just as intriguing, if not more so. It clearly indicates that the topic is still up for vigorous debate - in stark contrast to the OP's all-encompassing and easily-falsifiable claim that Graeber's work "doesn't hold up to scrutiny".