Ross is the Main Character on Friends

I will continue to use the previously established debate format for ease of reading. Affirmative CaseThe Everyman & The Damsel in DistressCon doubts Ross’ characterization as an Everyman because he is intelligent and has shown bouts of emotion in the past. To start, intellect is not sufficient grounds for disqualification in this respect. Of the examples of famous Everyman characters I provided previously, which Con did not dispute, Leonard (The Big Bang Theory) has a genius level IQ and Ted (How I Met Your Mother) is an architect. The key to preserving the audience-character connection in these cases involves regularly mocking or downplaying the intelligence while providing the protagonists with struggles that their smarts alone cannot solve. These both obviously occur with Ross; Con admits that Ross’ education is met with annoyance from his friends and no amount of paleontological knowledge ever seems to save his relationships. As for Ross’ bouts of emotion, Con does not explain why they should be an issue. Remember, Everyman characters are meant to be personally unremarkable to an extent that the audience may easily identify with their actions in the storyline. Con’s emotion examples - anger at losing a job, jealousy at a romantic rival, depression at the end of a marriage - are each extremely relatable and do nothing to disconnect Ross from the viewers. When it comes to Rachel, Con states that Rachel is something called a Mary Sue, which he describes as “the farthest thing from the normal” and “impossible unrealistic amazing fantasies.” At this point, I ask the audience to take a quick plausibility check. I argued Rachel is not the protagonist because, like Penny from Big Bang and Diane from Cheers, her quirky traits and often naive behavior make her a caricature to play off our more normal hero, Ross. Con argued that Rachel is the protagonist because, like Goku, Batman, and James Bond, she is so incredibly unbelievable and extraordinary that she defies all expectations and will “astonish and amaze at every turn.” Remember, this is Rachel we’re talking about. From Friends.Jokes aside, Con’s representation of this argument is actually entirely incorrect. Mary Sue is a fan fiction term referring to characters meant to represent the author [http://tinyurl.com...]. They are a means of wish fulfillment for the writer, not the viewer, so all of Con’s statements about Rachel being the protagonist because she’s living out all these incredible dreams for the audience is completely wrong. If anything, I’m guessing the audience would rather be a soap opera star (Joey) or sleep with Tom Selleck (Monica) than just change jobs or run out on their wedding. As a side note, the term Mary Sue originated in Star Trek fan fiction, which may explain Con’s dubious comparison of Rachel to Captain Kirk. A Hero’s JourneyCon completely ignores this argument. Please consider it a point in my favor. The Pursuer vs the PursuedIn response to my argument that Ross was more active than Rachel throughout their relationship, Con states that I am viewing romance from a male perspective. Aside from being baseless, his rebuttal ignores the role of a protagonist in a narrative. The main character differs from secondary characters in that the story is based on and propelled by their actions and choices. In conceding that Rachel is passive in her relationship with Ross, which is undoubtedly the primary storyline of the entire series, Con essentially concedes any possibility of her being the protagonist. As for Con’s claim that “The Girl Hero is always pursued,” I can think of a few female protagonists who might disagree: Carrie of Sex and the City, Buffy of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dharma of Dharma & Greg, Christine of New Adventures of Old Christine, etc. Gunther as the AntagonistThis point was originally a rebuttal of one of Con’s arguments, but my analysis revealed that Gunther acts as the antagonist to Ross’ protagonist. Con completely ignores this argument. Please consider it a point in my favor. RebuttalsThe show begins & ends with RachelCon completely drops this argument. Please consider it defeated. Rachel’s career improvesCon completely drops this argument. Please consider it defeated. Rachel’s relationshipsCon continues to mention Rachel’s dating history throughout his round, but fails to address my counter-argument that the intertwined nature of Ross and Rachel’s relationship makes this contention meaningless. Please consider it defeated. Rachel lives with the castThe only one of Con’s original arguments that made it to Round 2 involves Rachel living with the cast, though he does tweak it a bit. Considering both Ross and Rachel lived with all the other friends at some point, Con now claims that the important aspect is that only Rachel lived in every apartment. Again, why does this matter? As I said last round, Daphne from the show Frasier lived with every main character on the show at some point and she wasn’t the protagonist. An entire episode of The Big Bang Theory involved Sheldon living with (and being subsequently thrown out by) each main character, but that doesn’t make him the protagonist. Unless Con can explain how a character’s residence rather than their personality, struggles, or story arcs makes them the protagonist, this point is moot.ClosingAt this point, Con is in a precarious position. As the rules dictate that he must skip Round 4, this next speech is his last and no new arguments can be introduced. However, he has already dropped two of my affirmative arguments and three of his own. All that remains in defense of Rachel as the protagonist is the fact that she's lived in different apartments and may or may not be like Goku. As it stands, I believe I have shown the flaws in these arguments and explained why Ross' characteristics and plot points make him the far more fitting choice as protagonist. I look forward to the final round.