By Plenary Sessions: Arvo Aller

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and accusatory, expressing utter bewilderment regarding the opponent's incompetence. Direct questions are utilized, and long-term speculations (such as the price of electricity in 2035) are contrasted with the immediate reality (next week's price).

The rhetorical style is confrontational and critical, posing direct questions to the Prime Minister and accusing him of evading answers. This includes urgent appeals directed at the government ("Just admit it for once!"). The emphasis is placed on political opposition and highlighting the ineffectiveness of the policy.

The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, focusing on the long-term consequences of the constitutional amendment and the future of the nation. The speaker employs logical appeals, highlighting the link between the privileges and obligations of citizenship and encouraging the acquisition of citizenship. The tone is serious and persuasive, aiming to shift the coalition's support toward an alternative proposal.

The style is analytical and concerned, focusing on logical arguments (e.g., the nuances of coach funding) and educational values (discipline, determination). The speaker uses personal observations and conversations with teachers to underscore the scope of the issue. Political cynicism is evident at the end of the address, hinting that regarding a topic initiated by a coalition member, "nothing will actually happen."

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, directed straight at the Minister of Defence during the plenary session. The focus is on logical explanation and political accuracy, avoiding emotional or aggressive appeals. The tone is businesslike and concerned, emphasizing the need to ensure the visibility of the border both for our own people and for our neighbors.

The rhetorical style is confrontational and accusatory, beginning by admonishing the presenter to be more reserved with their lies. A skeptical appeal to logic is employed, demanding clarification regarding the distribution of economic benefits and posing rhetorical questions concerning the motives of the opposition.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, accusatory, and confrontational, utilizing intense expressions such as "outright lies" and "especially hypocritical." The speaker relies on logical argumentation, repeatedly posing questions regarding the contradiction between the claims of subsidies and low cost. He/She also criticizes the opposing side's name-calling and hypocritical justification.