it seems like we're just arguing definitions
Yes and no. There is more than nomenclature involved here, I think.
Whatever you call the method of questioning a hostile witness, it is indistinguishable, in appearance and substance, from cross-examination of an opposing witness.
One may question a hostile witness quite effectively without being "more confrontational".
In fact, a deft cross-examiner may disembowel a witness without the witness being conscious of any confrontation at all.
What makes this possible, of course, is the liberty given to the questioner to question the witness' answers. This is a liberty one does not enjoy with one's own witness [unless that witness is adjudged hostile, of course].
Whatever we name the practice of questioning a hostile witness, the practice differs from cross-examination in name only, not in the practice itself.
If that's what you meant when you said "we're just arguing definitions", Faldage, then I agree with you.
