I find college debt forgiveness to be backfilling an unequal burden we put on college students starting about a dozen years ago. During the great recession, many states needed to crank up tuition to cover gaps in their university budgets. Students at the time were given two options: pay even more out the nose for reduced services or drop out. Those who chose to stay had to build up even more debt than they would have piled up in the aughts. We as a country shifted the societal costs of educating our populace further onto the backs of the young. I often compare the state my friends who went to state school are still paying off their debt with the experience my older family had. My parents were both able to graduate from a state school with less than 5 figures of debt. My grandmother was able to pay her way through Berkeley with no debt by working at See's. Sometime around the late 90s we started to break this contact and by the teens, we had completely pulled the rug out from incoming college students. Despite having no college debt myself, I see college-debt forgiveness as a step back towards the society we used to be.

Are those going to people who "don't want to work", though? That was your original frame: assistance for unemployed/underemployed, not just assistance for people other than you.

Most statistics I've seen show that student debt holders are employed at a greater rate than the general population (not surprising, they have bills to pay). And of course pandemic relief was quite famously disproportionately aimed at employERs. All those PPP loans did nothing for the unemployed, as they only went to firms with existing payrolls.

I really think if you look at this in a more detached way, you'd maybe find that the "government helps people don't want to work" frame of these arguments is misplaced (which is the point of the linked article).