By Plenary Sessions: Arvo Aller

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and confrontational, often employing rhetorical questions to challenge the logic behind government actions. When addressing social issues, irony and strong emotional judgments are used ("utterly ridiculous," "for heaven's sake"), along with examples that ridicule the topic of social gender. The overall tone is passionate and concerned, particularly regarding security and the national language.

The rhetorical style is analytical and challenging, posing a direct and sharp question regarding the consistency of the presenter's claims. The tone is formal ("Dear presenter!"), but the substance appeals to logic, avoiding emotional expressions.

The rhetorical style is direct, inquisitive, and slightly confrontational. It employs irony and simplified language—such as the phrase ("to explain to the common people and to me as a citizen")—to underscore the illogical nature of the government's policy. The tone is critical and demands precision, particularly regarding the mathematical interpretation of taxes, emphasizing the logical discrepancy (the export and import paradox).

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and interrogative, focusing on logical arguments and the verification of documents (legal text, appendix). The tone is critical, especially toward the minister, who is accused of talking about how he is being "bullied" instead of addressing substantive issues. The speaker demands precise and technical answers, citing specific sections of the law and numerical data.

The rhetorical style is highly aggressive, accusatory, and emotional, emphasizing the "emotional trauma" inflicted upon citizens and the "brutality" of the police. The speaker employs numerous rhetorical questions to cast doubt on the motives of the police and the minister, demanding concrete accountability instead of an apology.

The rhetorical style is formal and question-oriented, focusing on the demand for logical and detailed explanations. Direct questions are posed to the presenter to highlight administrative discrepancies and procedural shortcomings. The tone is neutral and analytical, avoiding emotional appeals.

The rhetorical style is critical and inquisitive, focusing on logical argumentation and procedural accuracy. Rhetorical questions are often employed to demand justifications from the government regarding both the extension of procedural deadlines and budgetary reallocations. The tone is formal and detail-oriented, avoiding emotional appeals.

The tone is predominantly combative, critical, and blunt, accusing the minister of "talking nonsense" and labeling the continuation of Rail Baltic a utopia. The arguments are heavily fact-based, focusing on the deficiencies of specific projects and regional threats, but they also incorporate an emotional element (saving human lives).