By Plenary Sessions: Anti Poolamets

The speaker's style is highly combative, urgent, and emotionally charged, utilizing strong negative comparisons and hyperbole. He compares current policy to the "Soviet lying machine" and the insane campaigns of the Khrushchev era, accusing opponents of mythomania and ridiculing health problems. Although specific figures (billions, meters, euros) are used, the primary goal is above all to express moral and political condemnation.

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, accusatory, and emotionally charged, utilizing sharp and stigmatizing phrases such as "palagan culture," "trans frenzy," "slop bucket," and "male deceivers." The speaker contrasts "value culture" with the "spectacle of the woke," appealing to national values and conscience. Logical arguments (statistics) are interwoven with an emphasis on moral panic and urgency.

The rhetorical style is critical, serious, and skeptical, focusing on logical arguments and references to external analysis. The speaker utilizes historical parallels (the VEB Fund) and raises a specific procedural question, stressing the need to preserve both the consequences and the evidence. The tone is formal and centered on facts, rather than emotions.

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, accusatory, and emotional, employing strong hyperbole and negative comparisons (e.g., the bland text of artificial intelligence, the Soviet regime, Europe's Guantanamo). The speaker presents the government's actions as a sarcastic list of "achieved" failures, emphasizing moral indignation and a lack of justice. Direct accusations are used (e.g., "you are turning off the electricity") alongside rhetorical questions to underscore the absurdity of the government's actions.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, passionate, and accusatory, employing strong historical parallels (the Soviet Planning Committee in 1980, NRG Energy in 1999) to discredit the government. The speaker uses emotional phrases ("traveling circus," "magician's trick," "pyramid scheme") and irony to emphasize the illogical nature of the policy and the loss of public funds. The tone is predominantly critical and ominous, suggesting the imminent collapse of the policy.

The rhetoric is combative and accusatory, particularly when describing the Reform Party's historical financial problems ("birth trauma," "it was covered up again and again"). Vivid imagery and rhetorical questions are employed to emphasize technological inefficiency and the threat to heritage landscapes. The style is rather emotional and narrative, focusing on the lack of conscience and the criticism leveled at technology geeks.

The rhetorical style is highly aggressive, anxious, and urgent, utilizing strong emotional appeals and personal judgments (e.g., "crudeness," "vulgar, ignorant rambling"). The speaker repeatedly employs rhetorical questions to underscore the danger and inadequacy of the opponent's stance, while accusing the opposing party of systematic emotional agitation.

The rhetorical style is highly confrontational and accusatory, employing emotional appeals ("Put your hand on your heart now") and direct challenges aimed at the opposition. Irony and colloquial expressions are utilized (e.g., "Now eat the [porridge] you've cooked up here") to criticize the adversary's policies and perceived lack of conviction. The speaker attempts to ridicule the opponent by suggesting they are talking "muddled nonsense."

The style is very combative, accusatory, and sharp, employing strong political comparisons, such as calling it a "censorship law in the style of Communist China." Sarcasm is used, referencing a previous official reaction to data leaks ("It just happens"), emphasizing the government's lack of accountability and demanding concrete answers.