A return to the Moon is the most costly "been there, done that" in history.....and all NASA can muster to justify the program is to state the goal as "land the first woman and person of color on the Moon". That is horribly cynical on the part of NASA Manned Spaceflight.
You might be right that unmanned exploration offers better bang for the buck (I don't know enough to hold an informed opinion). And the SLS is an absurd waste of taxpayer money. But you're mischaracterising the Artemis programme.
Across six landings, the Apollo programme managed about 12d 12h on the lunar surface, 3d 9h of surface EVA time, and returned 382kg of samples. The "extended" Lunar Modules used for the last three missions could each carry a scientific payload of about 450 kg, including the 210 kg lunar rover.
Currently, the plan is for Artemis III through VI to each spend a week on the lunar surface. Artemis III will take samples of water ice and other volatiles found in permanently-shadowed craters at the south pole. Sure, a few probes have managed a soft landing there, but none are capable of sample return AFAIK. I can't find anything about Starship HLS's max payload, but vanilla Starship is supposedly capable of carrying 100-150 tonnes to LEO, so I would assume it's more than the Apollo LM. And we can obviously fit far more powerful, varied instruments into a given mass and/or volume than was possible in the early '70s.
Perhaps I'm being unkind, but your position is like someone in the '80s and '90s arguing for the cancellation of Galileo and Cassini-Huygens. "Why are we wasting money on more probes to Jupiter and Saturn? The Voyager probes already did that, plus Uranus and Neptune to boot."