We thank the editors of Continental Theory and Thought for providing us the opportunity to respond to Raymen and Kuldová’s article, ‘Clarifying ultra-realism: A response to Wood et al’ (hereafter ‘Clarifying Ultra-realism’). This article was itself a response to our article in the British Journal of Criminology, ‘Breaking down the pseudo-pacification process: Eight critiques of ultra-realist crime causation theory’ (hereafter ‘Eight Critiques’). Debate is essential to theoretical innovation, and we were pleased that Raymen and Kuldová took the time to engage with and respond to our article, and that Continental Theory and Thought has allowed us to answer their comments at length.