The pro-con format is an ancient academic game. As far as I recall, Galileo was involved at the Padua University in a pro-con debate about the relative motion of the sun and the earth. At the end of a hot debate, several wounded supporters were counted within pro and con factions. Nowadays, a smoother approach is taken, and I would prefer that the mainstream of pro-con debates be the search for the truth under different lights. Knowing his intellectual honesty, I believe that Dr Hubmayr has the same attitude. In fact, at the end of his point editorial, he says, “I suspect that in a normal lung, in the absence of other stressors, the clinical manifestations of high-Vt [tidal volume] ventilation are generally subtle and inconsequential.”1 On the other hand, my conclusion of the counterpoint editorial was that “if in a given ICU there is not the possibility of such measurements [stress and strain], a lower Vt/IBW [ideal body weight] would anyway be a better choice than a higher one.”2 It is quite evident that, although we use different words, we are expressing the same concept; that is, in a busy unit without the possibility of more sophisticated monitoring, a Vt of 7 mL/kg IBW, as suggested by Dr Hubmayr, is a reasonably safe choice. Incidentally, during the 2011 International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine in Brussels, Belgium, in a discussion of a worldwide survey on mechanical ventilation, Dr Esteban3 showed that the average Vt used around the world is ≈ 7.2 mL/kg IBW, indicating that Dr Hubmayr is at least in wide, if not good, company.