Rambling in cross-examination

Rambling in cross-examination is a common occurrence, either as an intentional strategy or as the result of poor speaking. Whether rambling is ever a good strategy is controversial.

Potential strategic advantages
Rambling may allow the cross-examinee to answer fewer damaging questions, and use cross-examination to further enhance their case. In addition, they may be in the better position, because their opponent looks rude if he or she cuts them off mid-sentence.

More problematically, rambling can make the cross-examinee appear ignorant, rude, and like they are trying to avoid the question. This can significantly reduce the judge's opinion of their speaking ability. Damage to credibility in cross-examination cannot be easily undone, so it is important that intentional rambling not look like intentional rambling.

Some debaters and coaches argue vehemently that speakers should never intentionally ramble in cross-examination. Their arguments include:
 * 1) Brevity fosters goodwill. Judges love clear, simple rhetoric, and will automatically consider a non-rambler much more articulate and professional - even if they don't explicitly say so on the ballot. In addition, other debaters often find rambling extremely annoying, so being concise significantly reduces the amount of aggression and animosity in competition.
 * 2) Answers are powerful. Trying to avoid arguments is the wrong approach; just beat them. A clear, concise rebuttal is much more rhetorically powerful than a vague answer that avoids the question.
 * 3) Rambling can form bad habits. Conciseness is at a premium during speeches, so it's a bad idea to get into the habit of being long-winded.

Controlling ramblers
Effectively cross-examining someone who rambles can be difficult. Fewer of the cross-examiner's questions will be answered, and it will be harder to corner the rambler into admitting a disadvantageous position. Even worse, if the cross-examiner tries to get the rambler to stop talking, they run the risk of appearing aggressive to the judges.


 * Keep calm. Maintaining composure and not sounding harsh or clipped is critical. Even just interrupting with a "thank you" can come off as sarcastic and annoyed.
 * Watch for gaps. When the speaker pauses, for example to take a breath, immediately ask the next question. If the rambler tries to continue the previous train of thought, it now sounds like they are interrupting you.
 * Use a polite phrase to interrupt. Saying "thank you" is common, but other phrases may work better. An effective option is to simply repeat the rambler's first name until they stop talking ("John. John? John!") There is a strong cultural norm of using someone's name to get their attention, so many ramblers will instinctively stop talking when they hear their name; and if they don't, it seems like they're being the insensitive and controlling one, rather than you.

If the cross-examinee doesn't actually answer questions, it can be difficult to make them do so without sounding like an aggressive interrogator ("ANSWER THE QUESTION!") One way to get around this is to use the segmentation method, in which points are divided up into a series of yes/no questions. If the question clearly expects "yes" or "no", and the cross-examinee doesn't answer, you can ask: "So was that a yes or a no?" This sounds like polite clarification, but it carries the implication that the cross-examinee is being unclear and didn't properly answer the question.