By Plenary Sessions: Helle-Moonika Helme

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, addressing the audience as "Dear Chairman" and "Dear Presenter." The speaker focuses on logical and procedural questions to clarify the rationale behind the schedule and its long-term consequences, while avoiding emotional appeals.

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, sarcastic, and accusatory, repeatedly employing the phrase "pure trolling" to characterize the government's actions. The speaker utilizes emotional appeals, referencing instances of rape and murder, and charges the minister with "seething self-justification" and using childish expressions. He/She employs irony to ridicule the opposing side’s arguments, citing the phrase "a state-beneficial educational project" as an example.

The rhetorical style is accusatory and confrontational, focusing on the opposing side's alleged dishonesty and concealment ('they didn't dare tell people this'). Historical recollection and rhetorical questions are employed ('do we now have more security, or rather less?'), in order to cast doubt on the consequences of the proposed bill.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and deeply ironic, employing powerful emotional appeals and direct personal attacks (for instance, labeling the minister a political activist and a party soldier). Sharp expressions are repeatedly used (e.g., "cognitive dissonance," "rubber stamp," "crackpots"), and the destructive nature of the government's actions is strongly emphasized. The speaker presents their views through questions and rhetorical exclamations, focusing on ideological and moral condemnation rather than neutral data analysis.

The rhetorical style is critical and combative, employing strong moral and ethical appeals, for example, by comparing compensation payments to buying indigenous land for glass beads. Rhetorical questions and hypothetical cases (such as the advertising of COVID vaccines) are repeatedly used to criticize the prevailing procedural logic. The tone is accusatory and demands explanations.

The rhetorical style is highly aggressive, critical, and insistent, accusing the Prime Minister of presenting half-truths and outright lies. The speaker balances emotional claims ("absolutely insane," "the worst performer") with logical arguments, presenting a detailed example of a two-child family's budget and demanding specific, concrete calculations. He uses the analogy of the "snake eating its tail" to describe the relationship between inflation and wage increases.

The rhetorical style is sharp, confrontational, and highly critical, employing strong accusations (such as amplifying state propaganda). Rhetorical questions and irony are utilized to highlight the discrepancies in the government’s stated priorities. Although factual data is provided (budget figures, research findings), the overall tone remains emotionally charged, particularly when discussing e-elections and priority setting.