As punishment, Romeo is banished from Verona. Is this punishment fair?
Claim #2- (One reason that supports your general claim/thesis)
Romeo is not entirely to blame for Tybalt's death. Tybalt insults and provokes him, and had Tybalt not initiated the fight, perhaps the tragedy would not have arisen in the first place. Hence, Romeo was just defending himself, and his punishment is therefore unfair.
Evidence #2- (Supporting evidence for your reason/claim)
In Act III, Scene 1, Tybalt says to Romeo, "Thou art a villain." He then draws his sword and challenges Romeo to a fight. Romeo tries to defuse the situation by saying, "I do protest I never injured thee, / But love thee better than thou canst devise, / Till thou shalt know the reason of my love." However, Tybalt persists, and Romeo is forced to defend himself. It is clear that Tybalt initiated the fight, and Romeo was merely defending himself.
Explanation #2- (Analysis of your evidence)
Romeo's actions were a result of Tybalt's aggression, and he should not be punished for defending himself. The punishment of banishment seems harsh and unfair given the circumstances. Romeo's banishment not only affects him but also has consequences for the other characters, ultimately leading to the tragic ending of the play. The punishment does not fit the crime.
Counterargument #2:
Some might argue that Romeo was partially to blame for the situation, as he went to the Capulet party uninvited, and his actions led to the tragic events that followed. However, even if Romeo's actions were a contributing factor, it does not excuse Tybalt's aggressive behavior and does not justify the punishment of banishment. Romeo's actions were not intentional, and he did not go to the party with the intention of causing harm or death to anyone. Therefore, the punishment of banishment remains unjust.