A response to Philip Hyland, Demetris Katsikis, and Chrysoula Kostogiannis on the debate point concerning the binary theory of emotional distress.

We were pleased that our paper “Applying the REBT cognitive disputation technique to the binary theory of emotional distress” (Turner, Jones, & Wood, 2018) sparked interest and debate within the REBT community. Our original paper was conceived to draw out the opinions of those who read it, and when we approached the three commentators, Philip Hyland, Demetris Katsikis, and Chrysoula Kostogiannis, we anticipated an insightful and engaging discussion. Our expectations were exceeded, as three different types of responses were developed by the three learned commentators. Hyland’s paper offers a rather categorical rebuttal of the binary theory of emotional distress (BTED), Katsikis’ offers a balanced and critical perspective, whilst Kostogiannis’s paper offers support for the BTED. All three approach the issue in different ways, and all three commentators draw on their own values and experiences to guide their points. It is impossible to do every element of each commentary sufficient justice, so we will focus on key points made by the commentators in our response here. In the spirit of scientific debate, we invite Hyland, Katsikis, and Kostogiannis to respond to the current paper with their further rebuttals and comments.