The thing is that the example you give here isn't just a matter of style, but also of posing and expression. The drawing on the left isn't just "more cartoony," it also feels more.... forced? Like, it feels like getting that cartoony look was more important than communicating the character's feelings.
When "cartoony art style" refers only to a more simplified character -- a simple shape with simple expressions pasted on -- then I don't actually think such a style is stronger for comedy. That style, in fact, could hurt comedy, because the art doesn't push the character's acting as much as it would in a more "serious" style.
It's absolutely possible to do a cartoony style that still pushes acting and expression -- in fact, you can often push those things further when you're not beholden to the realistic motions of a face and body!
This is just a tiny quick example, but this character is cartoony and simple and saturated without losing the pose and expression -- and even pushing both a little further. Meanwhile, the example on the left in the OP has an expression that's almost impossible to read beyond "he's probably smiling."
The strength of cartoons is the ability to exaggerate a little bit so that the pose and expression are more obvious than they would be on a real person, and thus can be funnier and more over-the-top. That doesn't mean they need wacky loony tunes poses, but like, if you're not going to use that style to have fun with your characters' expressiveness, then I'm not sure what would be the advantage of using that style.
TL;DR, I think in the example you've given, the style on the right is more appealing than the style on the left, not because the style on the left is "cartoony," but because it's less expressive than the more serious style. But if you like the idea of working in a more cartoony style and are interested in developing a cartoony style that's more expressive, then I think a cartoony style could still work!