ABSTRACT
Raymond Di Giuseppe, in a seminal article on disputing, has argued that Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT) therapists need to be comprehensive in their disputing interventions. With respect to disputing styles, REBT advocates a Socratic style where one asks their clients questions and encourage them to consider issues concerning whether and why a belief is rational or irrational. However, some clients may not respond well to Socratic disputing. Di Giuseppe mentions two additional disputing styles: metaphorical and humorous. The advantage of metaphorical disputes is that they are memorable. If clients make the right connection between the story and the appropriate rational principle, then they can have quite a lasting impact. However, if this connection is not made or remembered, then these disputes have limited utility. Humorous disputes are frequently paradoxical in nature, in that one takes their clients' ideas to some ridiculous extreme without ridiculing them as people.
