Ross is the Main Character on Friends

In this round, I will conclude all open arguments and briefly review issues Con dropped throughout this debate. Affirmative CaseThe Everyman & The Damsel in DistressFriends follows a standard sitcom format for ensemble comedies: provide the audience with an assortment of eccentric characters surrounding a more normal, “Everyman” protagonist with whom they can identify. Chandler and Phoebe’s eccentricities regulate them to comic relief duty, while the writers explain that they intended Joey and Monica to be more sexualized characters [1, see: Writing]. That leaves Ross and Rachel as potential protagonists. Ross’ lack of unique or overwhelming personality traits, coupled with being surrounded by absurdity, fits the definition of the sitcom Everyman perfectly. I defeated Con’s first rebuttal about Ross’ intellect and emotion, so now he argues that Ross is a caricature because he likes taking free things from hotels and owns an air purifier. If these are Con’s best examples of absurdity, I’d say he’s greatly helping my case. These character traits are about as boring and Everyman as they come. Compare them to believing your mom is a reincarnated cat (Phoebe), saving your sandwich from a shootout (Joey), or crying when you’re asked to take out the trash (Rachel) and the show’s most normal character comes jumping out at you. Rachel, on the other hand, perfectly epitomizes the sitcom archetype of the Damsel in Distress: helpless, naive, beautiful, and love interest of the hero. Con never addresses my arguments here, aside from last round where he essentially said “No, she isn’t.” Instead, he insists that Rachel is the protagonist because she is the most “amazing” character on the show. How does he prove this? By pointing out that Rachel got to meet a soap opera star (Joey), attended a wedding, and became a parent. Con has just described half the cast, including Ross. These events are not incredible or amazing, they are just things that happened. Add in the fact that Con does not understand the concept of Mary Sue characters, or provide a single example that isn’t a superhero or action star, and Con has no coherent case. A Hero’s JourneyI argued that Rachel’s struggles all end in Season 1, whereas Ross’ struggles see series-long growth and evolution. Con drops this point completely. This is a significant point in Ross’ favor and works to affirm the resolution. Pursuer vs the Pursued The fact that Ross is the active agent in his relationship with Rachel, is responsible for the majority of its progress and drama, and that the audience views this relationship from Ross’ perspective are all indicative of how a protagonist propels major storylines. Con ignores this argument completely, as well as my numerous examples, which he labeled the result of “Femi-Nazis taking over the media” and not representative of real-life dating. Rather than providing examples from Friends or a similar sitcom, however, Con looks to Disney movies, which are themselves bastions of gender stereotypes, for support. What he continues to ignore, however, is the fact that protagonists have a certain responsibility of story advancement that his explanation completely disregards. Gunther as the AntagonistI argued that Gunther serves as an antagonist to Ross and is the only such antagonist of the series, indicating that Ross is the protagonist. This is a very significant point in my favor and Con never once addresses it.RebuttalsThe show begins & ends with RachelCon believes that Rachel bookending the show implies she is the protagonist. In reality, many shows see attractive love interests enter at the beginning of the show to jump start the protagonist’s journey and relationship storyline. Her leaving at the end of the series allows the audience to once again live through Ross and the actions he takes to rekindle their romance and wrap up the series. Con dropped this point entirely, weakening his case and strengthening my own. Rachel’s careerI explained that all main characters on Friends see significant career improvement and Rachel’s history is nothing special. At that point, Con dropped this argument.Rachel’s relationshipsCon believed that Rachel’s relationships show some significance, but I pointed out that each of those relationships were either with Ross or relate to Ross in some way. Con drops this argument. Rachel lives with the cast Con continues to drop my counter examples of non-protagonists living with entire casts as irrelevant. Only in this case, it seems, where Rachel is meant to represent an amazing, out of this world character, does where she lives matter. As I have already proven that Rachel is not a Mary Sue character, and that Con uses the Mary Sue concept completely incorrectly, this point can finally be dismissed. Changing settings does not a main character make. The label of protagonist is reserved for the story’s hero, whose actions and reactions shape the direction of the plot. At no point in this debate has my opponent shown this characterization to fit Rachel. ConclusionIt may seem intuitive that Rachel is the most fitting protagonist of Friends; she comes in like a whirlwind and her odd behavior earns her a lot of laughs. Those same qualities, though, disconnect her from the audience and parallel the oddities of the rest of the cast. Only Ross, with his quiet, lackluster presentation, stands alone as the “normal” character in the bunch and the one that the audience can look to as a normal gauge by which to judge the actions of the others. Only Ross is faced with numerous and varied character struggles that he battles and grows from throughout the series. Lastly, as we would expect of a protagonist, Ross plays the pursuer in the show’s primary romance, and it is through Ross that we in the audience experience its highs, lows, and eventual resolution. Note: Con will pass Round 4. I suggest simply thanking the audience rather than forfeiting completely.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...