I'm just trying to get a feel for why people choose to use a debugger or logging based on their development stack.
It entirely depends on the type of problem. A lot of the work that I do currently is done on the back-end (C#, WCF-services). I typically find it easiest to use logging to get a rough idea on where and when a problem occurs, then I try to tailor a test that provokes the behaviour, and then use debugging in order to fix it.
I mainly use logging and unit testing, though I think my greatest weakness as a programmer is that I am not proficient in using gdp. I can do the basic stuff (breakpoints, watches) but don't really know enough to really tap into the power it really has.
I feel some discord in the question. Debugging—according to Wikipedia—is:
Debugging is a methodical process of finding and reducing the number of bugs, or defects, in a computer program
Logging is an automatic writing of trace text records while program is running.
So I use logging as a part of debugging. And I think many people are. Otherwise, what are logs were made for? Well, maybe for further numeric analysis, but that's another story.
[Front end and Back end. Desktop]
As usual: it depends....
Debugging is better if you are investigating behaviour at a distinct place in the code and/or you don't know what objects you will need to inspect and you don't mind interfering with the natural speed/order of code flow
Logging is better if there is a known variable or variables you need to monitor often over a wide swath of the flow AND when you want the code to run naturally without interruptions. Logging is also a useful addition to unit testing.