Con's point: Wins depend more on cars than drivers
Rebuttal: Credit and, also their cars
Let's say Lewis Hamilton has the top-level cars that can win in his first season. The reason? He is the most dominant driver from Karts to GP2 when he was there. When he was young and was driving Karts, even MSC praised him
. The guy that's currently winning, yeah. That will be equal to the current HAM praising a teenager that we probably don't know on the track driving Karts. He won numerous Karts championships, and he is the youngest driver in Mclaren's young driver's program at the time(13). This is the equivalent to having the opportunity of attending lectures of a famous professor while being only in middle school.
My opponent's first argument is like saying "He is only successful because he has a very good job. If you put someone in that job they will be more successful than what they are now". However, what led HAM to even get that best job? His previous experience. From Karts to GP2 he was winning, the life-equivalent of going to a very good high school and college and graduating from it. Of course, you can just put someone else in that job, but do they deserve it? It is the previous success and the fact he almost wins in his first season got him enough credit for a top-level seat.
On the other hand, MSC also has a remarkable career in his early years
. However, in his early years, he was less credit to be an F1 driver and more to be a sports car driver, hence he participated in Le Mans. MSC's early credit isn't enough for him to get a top-level seat like HAM. There is a reason for credit that why Ham got a top-level F1 seat at the beginning and Msc didn't.
It isn't irrelevant that the car's quality also signifies how great the driver is. You can't just pop me into an F1 car and not expect me to set the slowest lap for that car. My opponent is treating these two's great careers have nothing to do with them, but the cars.
MSC drove for Benetton and Ferrari for the remarkable years. Let's, again, not count Mercedes and Jordan because nothing remarkable was achieved.
HAM drove for Mclaren and Mercedes. No debate for that.
Now, if you are using the argument "mErCeDeS iS dOmInAtInG", then well, both of MSC's teams, in which he was winning, were very good teams: Frontrunners.
There is no debate on that HAM's teams were both frontrunners and have the capability to win Grands Prix. However, both of them, within the seasons which they can win, is driving frontrunners and this puts them both the same. If the car quality is equal, then whoever wins more is of more quality. HAM is extremely likely to win this season, and that makes him at least equal to MSC. Due to that he makes poles and leads more, percentages, and all that statistics above, HAM is obviously the better one. My opponent is trying to shift the resolution, but that is to no avail.
Neither Ham nor Msc is Stroll. They got it in the same way and neither was a pay driver. Ham just got more out of his career in the same amount of time.
Con's point: Crashing
Rebuttal: Undesirable, undesirable, undesirable!
What is good and what is bad?
Obviously, a quality that is desirable is good and one that is undesirable is bad. Let me have an analogy. Driver A drives at normal speed and can send you to the workplace in 40 minutes. Driver B, while obeying traffic law, can send you there in 30 minutes. Driver C, while sending you there in 25 minutes but has a tendency of crashing and driving recklessly. What would you choose?
Well, anyone with normal senses would choose Driver B. Driver B is HAM, and driver C is MSC. Of F1 the supposed playing field, cheating is obviously discouraged. You wouldn't kill all of your opponents in a ball game then farm free points and call it a day without getting disqualified. Obviously cheating is an undesirable quality and the tendency to cheat will make you less of a great person, considering a feet-on-the-ground millionaire is better than a bank robber, common sense.
Cheating a test wouldn't get you anywhere if caught. Cheating is undesirable. My opponent's argument is like saying "Cheating means he wants to get in there, and that is no bad!" MSC cheats and has controversial driving qualities, even going as far as deliberately crashing into his opponent and deliberately blocking his opponent off with an unsportsmanlike behavior. HAM is credit with none of these, and the most famous incident he was involved in wasn't even his fault.
Con's point: Different standards
Pro Conclusion: HAM has more desirable qualities and less undesirable ones than MSC
Con didn't even challenge any of my real statistics. HAM got more out of his career in the same amount of time. He is praised by MSC when he was just a teenager. Hamilton is never credited to be a reckless driver, and that makes him a more desirable driver than Schumacher. Hamilton has more desirable qualities and less undesirable ones compared to Schumacher. Vote Pro if you think you are convinced. Intelligence Out.