Being interrupted repeatedly by the same person in meetings is rarely a sign your argument was weak. Research on interruption points to a different mechanism entirely, one about who holds the floor, not who has the better point. That changes what actually works as a response, and it is not a stronger version of what you were already saying.
What the research actually found
Research out of George Washington University measured interruption rates in mixed gender conversation and found men interrupted women more than two and a half times as often as the reverse. A separate review of forty three published studies found something more specific still. The primary function of interruption in these dynamics is asserting dominance and taking the floor, not adding information or correcting an error.
That reframes what is actually happening when it keeps happening to you. It is usually a pattern about who gets to keep talking, not a considered judgment that your point was wrong.
Why strengthening the argument does not fix it
The natural instinct after being interrupted is to come back with a longer, more thorough, more evidenced version of the same point. If interruption were actually about content, that would work. Since it is usually about floor control instead, a stronger argument answers a problem that was not the real one.
The move that actually works is simpler and less about content entirely. Reclaiming the floor, plainly, without re litigating the point from scratch.
Delivery carries more weight than the words
How this gets said matters more than what gets said. An apologetic version, softened, delivered with an upward inflection that turns a statement into something closer to a request, tends to get overridden more, not less. A flat, level, matter of fact reclaim, something as simple as saying you want to finish the point, delivered without an apology trailing it, holds up better.
This is one specific, practiced delivery for one specific, repeated moment, not about being louder or more forceful generally.
When you can prevent it before it starts
If you have any input into how a meeting is structured, organizing it or contributing to the agenda, prevention is worth more than a strong in the moment reclaim, since it does not require holding ground under live pressure every time. Visible time allocations on an agenda put the tracking on the room itself, not just on your ability to hold the floor in real time.
Where to start
Before your next meeting with the person who tends to interrupt you, prepare one flat, short phrase you can say without needing to think of it live. Something like naming that you want to finish the point, said as a statement, not a question, with nothing apologetic added after it.
Use it the next time it happens, even if it feels abrupt the first time. It gets easier with repetition.
How this specific person tends to respond, and how much room you actually have to push back with them, is something you will read better over time than any general framework can tell you in advance. What this gives you is the version most likely to hold regardless.
There is a specific tone this needs, distinct from just picking the right words, and it is worth practicing once before the meeting where it matters most.