The lengths people will go through to stop something that hurts nobody, but helps many always astounds me.

Someone has to pay. Whether that is distributed to many or a few, a lot of people lose a little or a few people lose a lot. Someone has to lose something for someone else to gain it in this scenario.

You need better sources before arriving at a conclusion on this one. This is a topic that has been discussed at great lengths by people from nonprofits and activist organizations on many podcasts. I’m sure their info exists in written form if you look for it.

The money came from banks and went to the colleges via the students. If you take the money from the colleges, they will be "hurt." They will lose something they had before. If you take it from the banks, the same. If you pay it from government coffers, then the government has less to spend elsewhere. If you raise taxes, then the money is reaped from whomever has their taxes raised. If you print the money, then everyone pays a little through inflation.

Someone gets hurt. I already said the hurt could be distributed. It could also be levied on people with vast resources who would notice it the least.

Can you summarize the podcasts and writings that suggest no one loses money when a loan is forgiven?

Separately, why is a clear statement of fact controversial? You don't have to believe that loan forgiveness hurts no one to think it's a good policy to put in place. So why the weird reaction?

You don’t understand this at all.

Your contribution to my understanding so far has been zero. There are some podcasts on pedagogy. You should look into it.