Right, these are indeed great points.

I do believe you have a point, and to illustrate that we can look at JavaScript. The dynamic typing there is actually one of the reasons why it can be a pain to debug, when it starts doing crazy type coercion things.

So while the actual "static typing" aspect might make debugging easier, the point I presented was the one from the Python Docs saying that interpreted languages are easier to debug.

Now, I think we can leave the interpreter out of this, but if we compare the languages that are typically interpreted (i.e. the "easier" ones) with the ones "closer to the metal", debugging is potentially easier (although not decidedly) because of the availability of built-in tools rather than the actual syntax.

In Python, for instance, you can usually find a built-in function or property of the language to easily get you out of a bug, whereas the closer to the computer you get, you might start to get errors that are a bit more cryptic.

However, your point about C# might be correct indeed. C# hits a sweet spot between being performant and still much neater than C++, and is also a very well-designed language syntax-wise. So yeah, it could be easier to debug, but that's a subjective question we will never agree on an answer to.

Finally, to actually illustrate my point a little bit (I've been arguing for yours the entire time), I'll just leave a famous quote from the creator of C++, Bjarne Stroustrup, essentially about debugging:

“C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off.”

Oh, and lastly, I do use Visual Studio, it is definitely great. But I think it is incorrect to judge a language based on the power of an IDE.