Who hurt their military more, Hitler or Stalin?

That's a vast generalization.

The board consensus is that without lend lease and the US joining the war, the Soviets still would have most likely (not definitively) survived solely due to manpower and strategic depth.

The real debate without Western support is whether or not the Soviets can drive back the Nazis without bleeding themselves white and actually win the war.
That's fair. As some historians have pointed out, the high-tech war that Nazi Germany had to fight with the Western Allies was a much greater drain on its resources than the casualties and troop counts involved suggests. Sönke Neitzel points out that compared to a modern German night fighter (of the time), tanks were comparatively simple machines, manufactured at much lesser expense. It was very costly to sustain the fight against the Western Allies even discounting the land campaigns.

Without the Western Allies' continued participation in the war, Germany may well have overpowered the Soviet Union and relegated it to beyond the Urals (although I certainly agree that the USSR would have in all likelihood withstood such a blow), although it is worth noting that it's a very different war (if at all) where Hitler is sane enough to give his enemies an exit beyond victory or defeat.
 
Top