Static versus typing is a Ford-Chevy argument among programmers. Here’s the best comment on the subject I’ve seen lately.
Very briefly put, the Haskell [strongly, statically typed] perspective emphasizes safety, while the dynamic outlook favors flexibility. If someone had already discovered one way of thinking about types that was always best, we imagine that everyone would know about it by now.
Source: Real World Haskell.
The second sentence applies equally well to all Ford-Chevy arguments: if one alternative were uniformly better than all others, word would get out. These arguments rage because they involve comparisons along multiple (often implicit) criteria and no alternative is simultaneously better by all criteria.
The relative advantages of programming languages depend on how the languages are used. Although dynamic languages place less emphasis on safety, programs written in dynamic languages may be safer in practice than this would imply. Also, in general it is easier to reason about code written in a statically typed language. However, a programmer can easily subvert strong static typing by writing stringly typed code. Code written in well in a dynamically typed language will be easier to read than code written poorly in a statically typed language.
Comparisons of the advantages static and dynamic typing are nearly impossible. You could try to argue about what would happen “all other things being equal,” but of course all other things are never equal.
Related post: Questioning the Hawthorne effect