Counter Strike: Global Offensive is, on balance, a better competitive FPS than Team Fortress 2.
Haven't done a debate in a while, let's do this.
Keep in mind I've played TF2 a lot more than CS.
FPS: First Person Shooter
On Balance: All things considered
Better: "of a more excellent or effective type or quality" 
Competitive: "of or relating to a situation in which people or groups are trying to win a contest or be more successful than others" 
R2: Opening arguments
1. No K's/kritiks.
2. Plagiarism results in an automatic 7 point forfeit.
3. Forfeiting a round results in an automatic 7 point forfeit.
4. No trolling.
5. No arguments in round 1, no new arguments in round 4.
6. Failure to follow the debate structure will first result in a warning, and then a 7 point forfeit.
7. All citations must be within the text of the debate (not in the comments).
8. No semantics.
Good luck, and have fun!
Hi Valkrin, and thank you for creating this debate topic.
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and Team Fortress 2 are prominent games on today's First Person Shooter eSports scene.
The matter of which of those games is better is on a big part a matter of personal preference, which can't be changed through argumentation. But asking which one is better competitive-wise is not a trivial question, since, then, there are some objective characteristics that can be debated.
Since I have played both Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (I played it about 250 hours) and Team Fortress 2 (I played it about 2 000 hours) competitively, I believe I can point out some attributes that make Team Fortress 2 a game more suited for competitive play.
I would like to make clear that I do enjoy playing Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, like many other players, and the point of my argument will not be to discuss the number of players, since the quality of a game is not defined by the number of its players, but rather the quality of the competitive aspects of these games.
I'll consider a better competitive game, a game that gives a better environment for an objective appraisal of the skills of the players it opposes.
From now on, I will refer to Counter-Strike: Global Offensive as CS:GO, to Team Fortress 2 as TF2, and to First Person Shooters as FPS.
The rules are fair, and I'll do my best to comply with them.
And most importantly, good luck and have fun.
A big thanks to Icylittlething for accepting! I look forward to a fun debate.
Keep in mind throughout this debate I will mostly be referring to 6v6 TF2 as it's deemed the more "competitive" out of TF2's two primary competitive gamemodes, though I'll also make references to the other gamemode, Highlander, or 9v9 one-of-each-class gameplay.
The BoP is on me to show CS:GO is a better competitive FPS than TF2, and it is my opponent’s goal to prove that TF2 is a better competitive FPS than CS:GO. Let’s begin.
C1. Accessibility of Competition
Both TF2 and CS:GO have a competitive side to them that’s available to access. However, when looking at the longevity of a game, determining the ease of access to a competitive side of the game is very important. And CS:GO has much easier access to a competitive format than TF2, ignoring the cost barrier.
For starters, CS:GO, at this point in time, has a complete matchmaking system built into the client, with a ranking system to boot. TF2 has no such thing. This matchmaking is not the epitome of competition within CS:GO, as there many higher services such as ESEA or FaceIt available to those seeking better competition. The closest alternative TF2 has to this is tf2center.com, which works similarly to a PUG (pick-up game) service. Because TF2 has no matchmaking built into the client, if there are any unaware of these external sites, they will not be able to play competitively, and instead stick to the public servers Valve provides. Which leads into my next point-
While Valve IS preparing for competitive in TF2 (through the use of buffs/nerfs), their primary demographic is the “pub” scene, or the scene that consists of players who spend most of their time in public servers rather than competitive ones. The only notable example of influence for competitive TF2 is a player by the name of “b4nny”, who did a Q&A about Competitive as he was one of the beta testers . A notable example of Valve’s catering toward the pub scene is the Machina and the Phlogistinator’s weapon balances. The Phlogistinator was a weapon many pub players considered overpowered even before its buff, yet competitive players knew it was not a good weapon in the slightest, removing the Pyro’s utility. When Valve buffed it, the pub scene constantly complained about how overpowered it was, yet comp players still thought it wasn’t good because it’s completely countered through knowing where the Pyro is and watching the flanks. Because of the “complaints” Valve received, they nerfed the Phlog. The Machina, on the other hand, is a weapon considered blatantly overpowered in competitive due to being able to, with proper communication/assistance, completely negate its downsides. The pub scene doesn’t have the same issue, and as such it wasn’t nerfed. In addition to all of this, Valve has yet to finish a competitive matchmaking service over 8 YEARS after TF2’s release, even when the interest has been there for a long time, and has been expressed (it was even revealed back in April of 2015  that Valve is working on competitive, about 10 months ago). If Valve refuses to listen to its competitive community for so long, and still doesn’t listen, it won’t succeed as a competitive shooter.
Thirdly, there are a LOT more resources available for those looking to get better at CS:GO than those looking to get better at TF2. Some examples include:
“steel” and “adreN”’s YouTube channels
Workshop maps (training_aim_csgo2, recoil master, grenade maps, etc.)
Lastly, Valve is very poor when it comes to optimizing their game. First, Valve is forcing DirectX 9 in their matchmaking service. While this is not bad in itself, the thing that is bad is Valve’s lack of optimization in TF2. Over the years of adding cosmetics, particle effects, etc., Valve has not optimized their game well enough to even be played on higher end systems without an external graphics config. If a newer player wants to play but has a bad computer, they likely can’t due to how poor TF2’s optimization is. If Valve is considering matchmaking, they have to make their game at least able to maintain a consistent 144 frames per second on a decent card. Secondly, the voice codec for TF2 is heavily outdated. It has very bad quality and the delay is too long to be of any use competitively. CS, on the other hand, is well optimized and can run really well even on lower end machines.
C2. Skill Floor/Ceiling
The skill floor for CS:GO is a lot lower than that of TF2’s. This is because there are no really advanced mechanics a player needs to know before getting started in competitive. They need to know how to aim, common grenade spots, the map layout, and some weapon aspects (such as cost). In TF2, you’ll need to know all of the above (save grenades and economy), but in addition, you’ll also need to know about crit heals, Ubercharge, off-classes (in 6s), heal order, spies/spychecking (in HL), and how to push/hold in 5CP, among others. This makes the barrier for entry in competitive a lot harder for newer players in TF2 than in CS. Once this barrier is passed, however, the skill ceiling is a lot higher in CS than in TF2. This is because, apart from gamesense, the game revolves around proper crosshair placement. Evident in grenade throws, peeking angles, and AWPing, crosshair placement has an infinitely high skill ceiling because people rely on precise crosshair placement that has yet to be 100% perfect (or even close to 100%!). This can be improved upon and perfected tons over time, as well as gamesense. TF2 does not place as much as an emphasis on crosshair precision. While it’s still necessary to aim well in TF2 (especially for Sniper), no class has the same amount of precision needed to aim, control recoil (recoil isn’t evident in TF2), etcetera than the people in CS GO. Classes such as Medic, Demo, Pyro, Spy, and Soldier all have it so that their primary weapon isn’t a hitscan gun (Spy’s is technically his knife), while Scout, Heavy, Engineer, and Sniper have all hitscan primaries, 3/4 of whose primaries have lots of leniency when aiming. If someone is seeking competition, they are seeking depth. CS:GO provides more depth to a game than TF2 does, resulting in more room for improvement and competition.
C3. eSports Scene
While this does not directly deal with playerbase, the population and power of the CS:GO eSports scene should definitely be noted. The scene is alive and thriving. This is evident through many different tourneys (ESL Cologne, ESL Katowice, etc.) as well as the betting on CSGOLounge. The tourneys have large prizes and pots of hundreds of thousands of dollars, while the closest TF2 has to one of these tourneys is the Insomnia series, which pales in comparison to the previously mentioned tournaments. CS:GO betting also helps keep the scene alive, through the use of CSGL betting. Players can bet a certain amount of skins, and receive, in dollar value, some skins back if they win (in addition to their own). If they lose, they lose their skin. This encourages those seeking profit to look into the scene and its players quite a bit to profit. TF2 betting exists, but is rather small, in the form of saloon.tf. Compare some of their recent bets (50 combined) to CSGL, where tens of thousands of bets are placed on various teams.
The most notable example of how large the scene is is sponsors. Professional organizations such as Cloud9, CLG, Fnatic, and iBUYPOWER have all taken a large role in CS:GO competitive. They sponsor their players, help them head to tournaments, allow for sponsorships, etc., while most of the sponsors for TF2 (Intel most notably) have dropped out. The most recent sponsor to TF2 is Razer through their use of the Razer Arena, though it’s nowhere near as popular as services such as ESEA and FaceIt.
I rushed my arguments last minute due to accidental deletion, so I apologize. I look forward to Con’s Round 2!
My arguments about the scene and the game's accessibility are mainly rebuttals, I will then post them in Round 3 to follow the structure proposed by my opponent.
But the aspect on which a competitive game proves its worth is on its core gameplay, and this is where TF2 really shines. In fact, TF2 has many qualities that makes it, in my opinion, superior to CS:GO as a competitive game, and I will itemize here the most important of them.
CS:GO is random
The point of a competitive game is to oppose a set of players in a fair game, in which the winner will be the most skilled opponent(s). With that objective in mind, a good competitive game will strive to circumscribe the influence of randomness on the game. Indeed, random events can decide the outcome of a confrontation, but can't be controlled by any of the adversaries. This is at the opposite of the spirit of a competitive game .
This is why most competitive games today such as fighting games (e.g.Super Smash Bros. Melee ) or strategy games (e.g. StarCraft II ) contain little to no randomness in their competitive play.
This is the path that chose TF2: similarly to items in Super Smash Bros., stochastic actions are fun in casual play. But random weapon and damage spread, random crits, are all disabled in competitive play , leaving only very marginal fortuity in the game.
This is far from being the case in CS:GO. Its main flaw in that matter is the inaccuracy of weapons, which is added to the input of the player in every ranged weapon . This mechanic, admittedly more realistic than the predictable shots of TF2, add on the other hand an awfully important amount of luck to every fight in the game.
Indeed, everything that the player does in the game, ranging from walking to jumping around, falling from an elevated ground or taking bullets, climbing a ladder or firing (especially the famous no-scopes), everything adds an excessive amount of computer-generated randomness to the shots the player takes. Even standing perfectly still and taking a single shot is inaccurate !
Even if the idea behind this of making some weapons less viable at longer ranges is commendable, it fails at doing so in a fair and balanced way. A good aim can, and often will lose against a messy and lucky spray of bullets.
Even worse, some weapons in CS:GO have a high number of bullets and a high fire rate, making them viable to use in a this spraying fashion, such as the P90. These weapons substitute careful aiming and crosshair placement for an approximate aim and unskilled spraying. These weapons have massive spreads, and can still do shockingly high damages by hitting random head shots, making them in most cases a better option than an assault rifle at low level, and still viable at high level .
The idea behind this inaccuracy was to punish the use of close to mid range weapons at longer ranges, which is commendable. But where TF2 opt to a predictable and skill-based system with a damage fall-off, CS:GO random system fails at creating fair matches, rewards low-skill strategies and puts a maximum on how well a player can perform (skill cap). This results in a skill ceiling way lower than TF2's, and in a more frustrating, less interesting to watch game .
CS:GO is less able to judge players skill
CS:GO firefights are usually very short, usually finished in a couple seconds, after the death of one of the belligerents. This is much shorter than TF2's fights, usually involving many opponents and not always resulting in the deaths of all of them.
There are multiple reasons explaining that:
- First off, weapons in CS:GO deal tremendous damage. Every sniper rifles and shotguns in the game, the AK-47, and the Desert Eagle are able to kill any opponent in one shot. If a player is unarmored, he can be killed by almost all weapons in one shot .
- Another reason is the complete absence of heals in CS:GO. Once damage is taken, full health won't be restored until respawn. This is very different from TF2, that includes many ways of healing, such as health packs on the map, classes able to heal teammates (such as the Engineer or the Medic) and weapons healing the user.
This is problematic for many reasons.
Statistically speaking, the more an experiment is repeated in a test, the closer the data obtained becomes to theory. For example, if we were to roll a dice once and get five, we could think that we'll get five more often than every other numbers. If we repeat it a thousand times though, we quickly see that it's far from being true .
The same goes for FPS games. In these games, player behavior is, at high enough level, very unpredictable. Because of this, lucky kills do happen, even if the game is perfectly fair, and if a fight rarely lasts more than a second, it's not unlikely that a player kills a more experienced player. On top of that, considering that CS:GO is, as mentioned earlier, a game that reward luck rather than skill in its mechanics, these short fights just add another incentive to the player to use luck-based strategies such as spraying rather than a skillful aim.
Another reason why this is bad is because it hinders strategic options. In TF2, most fights are team fights because killing an opponent can't be done fast enough to just get away with it (except for pick classes specialized in doing so, such as the Spy or the Sniper). In TF2, killing an opponent is more strategic than in CS, because it's not just about being able to aim better than him and being better positioned. The value of the kill has also to be taken into consideration, and how much damage it is worth taking for it, as well as what a player taking a fight will mean for both the positioning of his team and the opposing team.
Lastly, the power of the weapons coupled with the inability for players to avoid damage through good movement results in camping techniques being extremely powerful. This is a problem, because where TF2 takes a true map awareness, CS:GO is mostly about being good at hide and seek, which isn't fun to play or play against, and watch.
This is one of the reason why TF2 is more strategic than CS:GO, but it's not the only one, and it's not the only skill that TF2 requires to a bigger extent, which brings us to the third point.
CS:GO opposes players on a narrower set of skill
The mere fact that players are able to get heals changes everything. It transforms a game that is mainly about killing every player in the enemy team to a strategic game that is more about gaining ground, since any player harmed will be healed, and any player killed will respawn in a few seconds. Similarly to more popular eSports such as MOBA, TF2 not only asks the player to perform better than their opponents, but also to be able to track what every player is doing at all times, how much health and where they are, as well as many other informations (e.g. the Über advantage, the Soldier bombing, the Spy, etc.) and act accordingly .
Even better, TF2 gives players the opportunity to specialize in a role. Teams are made of power classes at their core, but also need healing classes. This creates valuable targets, generating a need for pick classes specialized in killing them, themselves inducing a need for defensive and support classes.
Overall, this leads to more depth of gameplay and more strategy than CS:GO.
Traditionally, FPS games are about killing your opponent, but also about avoiding getting killed. This is why in these games, dodging is so important, and why the greatest competitive FPS games have in their core gameplay skillful movement mechanics (e.g. Bunny hopping in Quake 3).
This is the case for TF2: movement techniques by themselves require hundreds of hours to be mastered. Moreover, getting better at this skill is very rewarding, since a good sticky/rocket jumper is a force to be reckoned with, and a Spy or a Scout good at strafing is definitely more dangerous.
CS:GO chooses a completely different path. Not only does it lacks hard to master movement techniques, but it also punishes the player for moving. Indeed, jumping, falling or even just walking greatly harms your ability to shoot precisely. This results in fights where players move slowly, on very short distances, thus greatly decreasing the skill it takes to successfully shoot your opponent.
It's true that there are many weapons in CS:GO. But at the end of the day, the main differences between them are superficial differences. The skills they require comes down to two aspects: being able to aim well, and being able to control their spreads. Using them, you may be able to move more or less, or to shoot accurately at different distances and at different rates of fire, and it's true that these differences matter.
But it's nothing next to the variety of possibilities that TF2 offers. In TF2, a player can use weapons based on explosive, bullets, or fire. They may be hitscan weapons, or they can be projectiles, or melee, and require for you completely different collections of skills. This results in a wide diversity of viable gameplays: when you take the time to compare, the sneaky gameplay of the Spy and the explosive play style of the Demoman share almost nothing in common. The game can be played in a huge number of completely different ways, balanced over the years, that all take literally thousands of hours to master, where the only thing you can truly get better at in CS:GO in the long run is aiming.
This is also the reason why surprises happen way more often in competitive TF2, making it all the more entertaining to watch  than CS:GO's competitive gameplay which revolves over a few meta strategies.
 Not later than today: https://goo.gl...
C1. CS:GO is Random
I will concede that there is some degree of randomness within CS:GO's spray system. However, there is also lots of skill to be had within it. Firstly, I feel like clearing up what appears to be a misconception on Con's end. Spraying itself is not necessary a mechanic that only newer players do. In fact, many pro players will spray through smokes or through doors in the hopes of catching out an enemy. There's also various spray patterns a person has to control if they wish to spray at longer distances. This adds an element of skill to an otherwise unskillful element. Newer players will try to spray close to an enemy because they can likely hit the chest and kill them. More seasoned players will still spray at close distances, but instead aim for the head. They will also spray through medium distanes, but aim at head height and follow the "spray pattern" for each gun .
My next point, following this, is that opponent says that "A good aim can, and often will lose against a messy and lucky spray of bullets", which is very untrue. Assuming two players are in an equal situation, the one with better aim will always win due to proper crosshair placement. Though in a situation of the match being unequal (caught off guard, peeking a corner, etc.) one always needs to be prepared. IF they are caught off guard by someone with worse aim, then they deserve to be killed for their lack of paying attention to their environment.
In addition, while opponent's source "" does display factual info, what it ignores is the context in which those shots were being taken. The source shows that from around goose to pit, the AK has around 38.1% headshot accuracy. In an actual scenario, nobody in their right mind would try to get a headshot from that far. Likely, if there's someone in pit, it's an AWPer. If the AWPer times it well enough, he could easily catch the spammer off guard. Or maybe, his teammates could be an easy distraction while he takes his shot. Point being, it's highly unlikely for someone to try to do that when there are plenty of better things he could be doing, such as smoking long to prevent the AWPer's sightline entirely instead of risking his life.
C2: CS:GO is less able to judge a player's skill
Again, this statement is false. Opponent mentions how CS:GO's weapons kill way faster than TF2's, thus resulting in not being able to accurately judge skill. While it is true weapons kill faster, it should also be noted that each TF2 class (save the medic) has a weapon that can kill players very fast OR dish out high amounts of damage. As follows:
Scout: Scattergun (can kill every class, except the Heavy, with 2 meatshots)
Soldier: Rocket Launcher (large amounts of splash and a high amount of damage, able to quickly bomb a med and kill them)
Pyro: Flaregun (on a target on fire, most commonly used in the "puff and sting" tactic, which will kill 4/9 classes easily)
Demoman: Stickybomb Launcher (weapon with the most DPS in standard 6v6 meta, useful for setting up traps)
Heavy: Minigun (any enemy that comes close is practically dead except for a Scout, which is a very volatile match)
Engineer: Sentries and Shotgun (level 3s do massive amounts of damage, minis are great for chip damage, and shotgun is similar to scattergun)
Sniper: Sniper Rifle (can instantly kill 5/9 classes with a single shot to the head)
Spy: Ambassador and Knife (102 headshots on any class, and a weapon that automatically kills a target with a huge range on their back (180 degrees))
So while yes, CS:GO's weapons do kill faster, TF2 has plenty of weapons that can end a life extremely fast. I just mentioned the primary ones, but there are also Scout's combos with the Crit a Cola, Guillotine+Sandman, Soldier's Buff Banner, Demo's Sword (with charge), etc., so I don't think this a valid case against CS:GO by any means.
In fact, because weapons in TF2 deal less damage, this also means that if you make a mistake in TF2, you are LESS likely to be killed by it, because of "how low" the damage is in TF2, thus lowering the skill ceiling and importance of not messing up, instead of lowering the skill ceiling of CS. And because there are no heals or respawns in CS, it places a much larger importance on a person's life, and as such they have more of an impact within the game and not a tendency to rely on their teammates, which you can do within TF2, most notably in the Highlander format.
Value of a kill is also very important in CS:GO. A lurker down means that the team can get free rotates to another site or area. An AWPer down and the AWP claimed means they don't have to worry about long sightlines. The bomb down means that the Terrorists are FORCED to come to the bomb in order to win the round. And each of these roles play a key importance within the game.
And finally, Con's comments about "hide and seek" and being "not fun to play or watch" are blatantly subjective and should not be taken into consideration.
C3: CS:GO Opposes players on a narrower set of skill
While CS:GO does place a large importance around the kills that take place, that does NOT mean that the game is mainly about killing every player. As with CS:GO, TF2, Dota, LoL, et cetera, the games are objective based, and their main way of fulfilling an objective is by killing the opposition. The bomb is the objective in CS, and you COULD plant the bomb without any resistance through the use of careful smokes, flashes, HE grenades, and molotovs. But it is unlikely. The same is true for TF2. You COULD cap the point without any resistance, but it is very unlikely. In fact, the backcap opponent cites in "" would widely be considered an unsmart play unless the Medic was in position (which he was), but he also got the cap because the enemy team was not paying enough attention to leave one player behind to watch the backcap. This could be referenced to planting the bomb without killing anyone and ninja defuses. CS:GO also requires tracking of posiiton and awareness, so I don't understand why opponent is trying to argue this in favor of TF2 when it really could be said for both games.
While movement was a huge part of CS:S (notably bhopping), it was nerfed extremely. Why? Because it was harmful to the game. If you didn't know how to bhop within CS:S, then you are inherently at a disadvantage against everyone else who does. This raises the floor to competitive entry (which is bad), but lowers the ceiling because everybody else will have mastered bhopping, so it is nothing more than just an extra button to press for the sake of a button press. This is similar to Melee's "l cancel" mechanic. It raises the floor because it is necessary for competitive entry by reducing your landing lag on an aerial. But it doesn't impact the ceiling because every pro player will have it ingrained into their muscle memory, and it serves no real purpose other than pressing for the sake of not being behind. While unintentional, it is harmful to game design if put in intentionally (most notably in Project M). It should also be noted that strafing still exists within CS:GO to the same extent of TF2 and CS:S. So while stuff like bhopping is essentially removed, it was for the better of the game, not for the worse of it. Players can still utilise strafing to their advantage, most notably strafing from cat to CT spawn on Dust II.
C5: Gameplay Diversity
Conceded, since this is a truism and not debatable. However this doesn't display much merit towards the competitive scene, and instead is just a fact about the game.
Since this is the last round I have to argue about anything, I'd like to point out the current design of some weapons in the game.
Matchmaking is confirmed to have NO weapon bans [source  from R2]. This means weapons like the Darwin's Danger Shield are unbanned. Because a Sniper can survive a headshot AND have extra health, this forces the other Sniper to use that weapon too. Also, the Vita-Saw. If one Medic isn't running it, they are at an inherent disadvantage against one who does. The GRU for Heavy is also very important in 6s, as it allows for the class that can counter all jumping movement to get to mid and stop bombs. If the Engineer were to use the Wrangler, level 3s would become a lot harder to kill and would stale gameplay. This forces weapons to be run, and unless Valve does something to these weapons, it could greatly stale gameplay, which drives off anyone from playing "true" competitive TF2, where there are item bans.
Over to Con.
Icylittlething forfeited this round.
Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited round three and thus the debate in violation of rule 3:
"3. Forfeiting a round results in an automatic 7 point forfeit."
It was a huge shame because I was really looking forward to completing this debate. Oh well. Thanks to Con for the time they put in this.
Please vote Pro. Thanks.
I was indeed unable to post my round in time due to college work, and I couldn't get to it until today. Sadly, I thought I had time but I didn't take into consideration the verification page, that made me lose the 10 seconds I have left.
Still, rules are rules, I should have been able to post it sooner and it's only fair that Pro wins.
What was supposed to be Round 3
My opponent made many valid points throughout this debate, but some of them are, in my opinion, inaccurate or factually wrong. The point of this section will be to point out the arguments that are, to my mind, flawed, and to disprove them.
To be fair with my opponent, I won't refute Pro's rebuttals, since he couldn't do the same for mine, due to the debate structure.
About the accessibility of competition
Here, my opponent argues that competitive in CS:GO is more accessible, because of the built-in matchmaking system. While this is true, I concede it, I would still like to mention that it's in fact not as bad as my opponent makes it look like.
It's true that it's easier to hop in a competitive game of CS:GO, but TF2 still has many websites dedicated to find matches at different levels. There are lobby sites such as tf2center.com, but there are also leagues for organized competition, such as ETF2L, ESEA or UGC, as well as sites meant to help players to get into competitive, such as playcomp.tf. Overall, competitive TF2 managed to become popular, and players usually find out about it in a couple hundred hours, which is not much more than the time it takes to access CS:GO matchmaking anyway. Even better, I would say that the fact that TF2 competitive play survived so long without Valve support is yet another proof of how solid the competitive aspect of this game is.
CS:GO's matchmaking system is far from being flawless either. Due to how effortless it is to join a matchmaking game, and how permissive it is, it allows a huge number of cheaters, smurfs and griefers that can very often ruin a game.
CS:GO is also a new game, and isn't free, and is the sequel to three other paying Counter-Strike games. Not only does it parts the community between these games, but they also have different mechanics, so the experience gained over time isn't as meaningful as in TF2.
About the amount of resources to train, I would say the comparison my opponent makes is quite subjective and debatable, since there are many maps (e.g. tr_walkway_rc2), youtube channels offering help to get better at the game (e.g. MR SLIN and Uncle Dane) and websites dedicated to learning TF2 (e.g. wiki.teamfortress.com has 47 705 articles to this day, where, for comparison, counterstrike.wikia.com has 1293 articles). The community of TF2 is hyperactive, and new maps, game modes, weapons and cosmetics are accepted by Valve in almost every major update.
TF2's optimization problems are also quite subjective to me, since most middle-end computers can run it at a correct frame rate.
Furthermore, TF2 allows for way more customization than CS:GO: many scripts, HUDs, and configs can be installed. Not only does it helps make the game tailored for the player, thus making it more enjoyable, but it also help improving frame rate. Many configs exist to improve the frames per second of the game, making a huge difference for low-end computers that can this way still run the game smoothly, more at least than CS:GO.
About the skill floor/ceiling
Here, I agree with the facts described, but I must disagree with the conclusion that is drawn out of it.
It's true that, as said here and in my own arguments, there are a lot more things to master in TF2 than in CS:GO, and I won't try to demonstrate it again since my opponent concedes it. But this proves the exact opposite than what my opponent argues: since it takes a lot more time to master everything there is to master in the game, it means, by definition that the skill ceiling is higher. 
About the eSports scene
In that paragraph, my opponent mainly argues that the bigger eSports scene of CS:GO makes it a better game for competitive. It's true that CS:GO's eSports community is bigger, and that sponsors are prizes are bigger. It's also true that it plays a role in the number of players it attracts.
But I disagree that it means that it makes CS:GO a game more suited for competitive play. Money is more present in CS:GO than in TF2's eSports scene, with bigger cash prizes, and more sponsors. But the same could be said for Call of Duty, or even Asphalt 6  (a mobile game), and it's very disputable to say that they are better competitive game than TF2. It's true that an eSport can't grow without money involved, but it doesn't mean in any circumstance that it makes a flawed game better.
I would also like to point out that what my opponent qualifies as assets of the game didn't only bring good things to the game, far from that. In fact, since CS:GO got a bigger eSports scene, many players got involved in scandals by cheating or match-fixing (e.g. steel , which my opponent cites as a valuable member of the community, was banned due to match-fixing, illustrating the quantity of players banned).
TF2 competitions are in the most part organized by the community, with cash prizes emanating from the community mostly . And I think it's a reason why today, CS:GO has a more toxic community, with cheaters, smurfs and trash-talkers who make for an overall competitive experience far worse.
What was supposed to be the conclusion
To conclude, I would say that TF2 and CS:GO are both very good games, with deep gameplay, and asking a lot of skill from the player. The matter we discussed was mainly subjective, and about personal preferences. I hope though that the arguments I presented will help the readers understand why I personally consider CS:GO to be a game rewarding more luck, punishing more skill, and require in the end a lot, but less skills than TF2 to be played competitively, thus making it a game less competitive.
And as a bonus, to illustrate my main point: https://www.youtube.com...
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|