By Plenary Sessions: Anti Poolamets

The tone is anxious and pressing, highlighting the gravity of the situation using phrases like "hopeless" (quoting a colleague) and "clearly spiraling out of control." The speaker relies on personal anecdotes and regional examples (Otepää Maxima, Võru) in their rhetoric to underscore the scale and emotional impact of the issue, favoring these over formal data.

The rhetorical style is highly passionate, accusatory, and deeply concerned, employing powerful emotional appeals to underscore the threat to public health. The speaker uses direct accusations ("fraud," "criminal company," "life-threatening") and supports their claims with both historical examples and personal anecdotes (a school nurse, a pharmacist). The style is confrontational and aims to instill vigilance in the listeners.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, confrontational, and often sarcastic, employing ironic comparisons (such as equating the Reform Party with social democrats, or citing Pärtel-Peeter Pere's cargo bike as a model). It utilizes both emotional appeals (the restriction of freedoms, the difficult lives of rural residents) and specific examples (Jürgen Ligi’s previous quote, the minister’s residence in Rae Parish).

The style is insistent, combative, and emotional, especially when criticizing opponents, using accusations such as "extortion" and "outrage." The speaker emphasizes the urgency of the action ("we don't have time to dawdle") and uses a moral appeal, demanding the opponent "repent their sin." He frequently employs personal attacks and historical references to underscore the incompetence of the opposition.

The tone is combative, critical, and frustrated, using sharp imagery like "the soap bubble burst" and referring to the opposing side as "rusty" and passive. The speaker uses rhetorical questions to emphasize the existence of a political pattern and the coalition's inaction. The style is direct and focuses on accusations and highlighting procedural shortcomings.

The style is largely confrontational, emotional, and urgent, particularly when addressing issues of corruption and security. It employs strong language and accusations ("outrageous act," "betrayed Ukraine"). Arguments are supported by personal experiences (a train journey, a village incident, a personal court case example) and anecdotes, which are then balanced with factual data and expert opinions.

The style is highly combative, emotional, and accusatory, repeatedly employing terms like "the arrogance of the state" and "the malice of officials." The speaker relies heavily on storytelling and moral appeals (injustice toward society's weakest) to underscore the absurdity and urgency of the situation. They also use irony, criticizing the "great humanists" who ignore the problem.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotional, employing strong metaphors (e.g., Estonia’s "hardworking ants" versus the "laziness" of others) and personal attacks against specific politicians (Ligi, Rask, Kallas). The speaker frequently levels accusations of lying and shaming, seeking to morally and ethically condemn opponents and accuse them of shattering the reputation of the representative body.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and accusatory, often employing rhetorical questions and direct accusations (e.g., "Why do you want to antagonize us?"). The tone is one of concern and expresses indignation (e.g., "A paradox!"). Both logical argumentation (the effect of funding on independence) and emotional accusations (antagonism, financial manipulation) are utilized.