By Plenary Sessions: Peeter Ernits

The rhetorical style is critical, urgent, and combative, employing strong emotional expressions (e.g., "extremely dangerous," "the chicken flock is powerful"). It utilizes both procedural logic and high emotional intensity, comparing the situation to the declaration of martial law to underscore its gravity. Rhetorical questions and irony are also used ("let the chickens attack").

The speaker's rhetorical style is demanding, skeptical, and at times dramatic, utilizing phrases like "terrible consequences" and "frightening" to underscore the seriousness of the threat. He focuses on logical arguments, repeatedly demanding analysis and careful consideration to avoid vague answers regarding legislative delays. The tone is formal, addressing the chairman and the rapporteur.

The rhetorical style is formal (using addresses such as "esteemed chairman," "esteemed prime minister"), but the content is provocative and confrontational. A strong rhetorical question and juxtaposition (OECD vs. Venezuela/Russia) are employed to emphasize the criticism and create a sense of urgency.

The speaker employs an extremely combative, emotional, and biting rhetorical style, repeatedly using strongly negative adjectives such as "obscene" and "shameful." He relies heavily on literary and historical comparisons (Orwell's *1984*, Big Brother, a Stalinist future) to frame political decisions as existential threats to freedom. He makes direct accusations that the media is biased and carrying out political mandates, thereby underscoring the gravity of his views.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and at times colloquial, employing negative and colorful expressions to describe procedures ("dicking around," "slacking off," "a total shambles"). He uses historical context and references to previous failures to underscore the pointlessness of the current situation. The speaker poses direct and accusatory questions to the ministers, highlighting procedural failure.

The speaker’s style is passionate, at times combative, and dramatic, employing powerful metaphors ("burning money," "the steamroller," "even a fool gets beaten in church"). He blends emotional appeals (shame, poverty) with logical and statistical data to underscore the arrogance and incompetence of the rulers. The overall tone is critical and cautionary.

The style is analytical and logical, employing practical metaphors (such as tailoring a suit) to clarify complex legislative flaws. The tone is constructive, yet it stresses the urgency of implementing corrections to prevent issues related to children's catering. In the initial address, the tone is critical and interrogative concerning the efficacy of the Supreme Court Chief Justice's report.

The style is sharp, sarcastic, and combative, employing ironic titles (the prime minister as "chief butler") and powerful metaphors ("the ham party has been replaced by the cheap sausage party," the government's behavior as a "steamroller"). The speaker utilizes both emotional appeals (Weltschmerz, fear of war) and references to classics (Orwell) and statistics to highlight the chasm between the government's narrative and reality. Finally, the tone is occasionally milder, referencing the start of a football match.

The speaker’s rhetorical style is sharp, provocative, and often sarcastic, employing powerful metaphors, such as describing parliamentary work as "intellectual onanism" (a fruitless, yet vigorous activity). They utilize both logical arguments (figures, legal statutes) and emotional appeals, characterizing the impact of these generators/sources as a "cacophony of light and shadows" that drives one mad. The overall tone is concerned, yet simultaneously ironic.

The style is critical and passionate, focusing on highlighting the injustice faced by small beekeepers, utilizing both statistical data and emotional appeal. Figurative and sharp expressions are used ("ministry bigwigs," "a miserable game of telephone," "pocket change"), along with rhetorical questions, to emphasize political superficiality. The tone is formally polite, but substantively demanding and accusatory.