Lewis Hamilton, as an F1 Driver, is better than Michael Schumacher

I will argue my point within these fronts:

The BoP stays on Pro as Con also needs to point out that either Hamilton is of equal qualities compared to Schumacher or Schumacher is the better out of the two.

In this debate, abbreviations will be utilized to save space and time.

Let's ignore MSC's last 3 years for Mercedes here because c'mon, not one single win was achieved. Let's also not count his short-lived Jordan career and his first year, because he is competing in a non-fair field: where he started halfway through the season. HAM drove for only full-season contracts. Cutting time periods without wins for MSC is actually giving MSC an advantage in the mathematical calculations. MSC actually competed in 19 seasons.

MSC has 91 wins, HAM has 89, and it is very likely that he will surpass the record this year, considering how good he is already doing, securing 5 out of 7 wins this year.

MSC participated in 15 seasons that have a win, and overall it is approximately 6.07 wins per season. HAM participated in 13 seasons overall with a win in every single of them, and overall it is approximately 6.85 wins per season. A high number = better, and that means HAM is overall better as a driver considering he has more wins per season. This is counting that the 2020 season isn't even completed yet, and if over on this trend HAM might be able to raise the numbers up, considering 6.85 wins per season is that if HAM wins no more races this season, which is highly unlikely onboard his trend of winning most races, more than anyone else ever.

HAM has a higher win percentage than MSC.

MSC has 155 podiums, recently broken by HAM. HAM has driven for fewer seasons compared to MSC. Comparing each of the two, We have 8.16 podiums per season for MSC and 12.08 for HAM. This difference isn't eve little anymore.

HAM has a higher podium percentage than MSC.

MSC has 7 championships out of 19 seasons, and 15 seasons in which he is actually competitive. Out of those 15, only 47% were championship wins. HAM has 6 championships out of 12 finished seasons, possibly the 7th one this year. With everything we have, HAM has 50% of the seasons being driver champions, and if we count a highly possible scenario, it will be 7/13, which means 53%, higher than MSC's 47%. 

HAM got his 6th championship victory in 2019, his 12th season. MSC did it in his 12th fair season, 13th season overall. It is quite equal here. HAM is one of the only drivers who won the WDC in his 2nd season, with him being overall in the top 2 in his rookie season, tying with former world champion Fernando Alonso and only lost to the more experienced Kimi Raikkonen. 

Basically, if you strip the first one and last three years of MSC's career, you get one close to HAM's, but not exactly.

HAM has 93 poles whereas MSC has only 68. HAM's Pole percentage is higher than MSC's. 

HAM is 1st on this list whereas MSC isn't even in the top ten. HAM score more points per race than MSC.

HAM leads for more distance than MSC.

MSC has the audacity to deliberately crash into his opponent in 1997. This is the equivalent of poor conduct.

This video shows that even in 2010, MSC also pushed Barrichello to the barriers a little bit too close to be safe. 

Hamilton is disqualified from only one race, and it isn't even his fault. Hamilton had basically no incidents like those above and is overall less dirty of a driver.

On the other hand, Hamilton is actually the defender against Schumacher's dirty tricks, that is, when they are actually competing.

Pro's argument here seems to be, the more you win, the better driver you are (in other words, better drivers win more). But is this always the case? A child prodigy in F1, Max V. had other things to say--  "Verstappen also stressed the importance of having the right car and claimed Fernando Alonso would have also won many races with a Mercedes." (https://www.essentiallysports.com/max-verstappen-lewis-hamiltons-future-in-f1-depends-on-mercedes-not-on-him/). Daniel Ricciardo, another participant in F1, has also complained about how important the car is within the racing venue, saying that Hamilton does have talent but it's 75% car and 25% driver. (https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/21765214/daniel-ricciardo-says-f1-75-percent-car-25-percent-driver). I could go on. Even a F1 team manager has admitted that it's tough nowadays to truly judge who is the best driver, as an article concludes, " The prevailing factor in deciding the victor of a race is the performance of the car rather than the driver." (https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/26/17499438/formula1-french-grand-prix-behind-the-scenes). 

As for crashing, how is this relevant to your argument? The idea is who is the better driver. The dirty tactics were just how competitive he was, and doesn't negate his countless wins and titles. Remember that these things are very nick of moment, heated, and difficult to properly judge emotions. These incidents happen all the time. It doesn't make you any less of a driver if you made the wrong decision if you were rushed and felt you had to block off your opponent and crashed into them.

Finally, how can we compare these two at all? They are from different times, with different cars, different standards, even different rules. As such, you cannot say that Hamilton is better than Schumacher, because the "best F1 driver" should be judged relative to their standard rather than modern standard. 

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.

Predictions suggest that Alonso will get fewer wins out of a Mercedes than Ham will. The jobs are never free. Only the most capable deserve one. Lewis Hamilton deserves it whereas Alonso didn't. 

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.

By the time MSC entered Benetton, Benetton is already one of the best teams. His cars aren't half bad.

By the time he entered Ferrari, they are, well, dominating for decades.

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.

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 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.

I concede. It seems most people still think Michael is the best overall but Hamilton is looking to be a rising genius and his winrate seems to prove that he might eventually surpass Michael entirely.

Con has dropped all my points and has conceded. Vote Pro.

I have successfully fulfilled my BoP: Convincing that HAM is a better driver than MSC. Here is the conclusion.

Admitting for a concession is good conduct. I advise voters to award the arguments point to Pro and conduct to Con. Thank you for reading this large hunk of text.

gg g