In the article “Why “Seinfield is Superior to “Friends””, Melissa Blake uses a Rogerian argument to prove that Seinfield is better than Friends. Blake does acknowledge that Friends does have a greater amount of appeal to the show due to the pseudo-reality of the characters and their lives. She makes the argument that Seinfield was significantly more realistic and had a more complex storyline, whereas Friends gave an unrealistic view of what it’s like being in your twenties. She directs the argument towards the reader, even giving anecdotes of the impact both shows have had on her. Blake’s argument about Seinfield being the better show was successful due to her use of ethos, logos, and pathos in her argument. Even though I like Friends significantly better, I can’t help but agree Seinfield is the better show because of its relatability to the normal everyday people you come across.