By Plenary Sessions: Anti Poolamets

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and urgent, employing powerful emotional appeals regarding the government's unethical behavior and manipulation ("they lie, they trick, they cheat"). The speaker stresses the lack of voter confidence and uses specific examples of scandals (Prigozhin, R-Hooldus) and economic theories (tax non-collection) to substantiate their arguments.

The style is confrontational, accusatory, and focuses on logical contradictions, using the phrase "your story doesn't add up." Strong emotional terms are employed, such as "totalitarian regulation," and direct questions are posed to elicit clarification. The speaker demands an explanation and uses comparisons (Latvia and Lithuania) to support their arguments.

The rhetorical style is highly aggressive, accusatory, and condemnatory, relying on powerful emotional appeals and hyperbole (for instance, the comparison to North Korean methods). The speaker utilizes personal examples (Lehtme, Kersna) as "model heroes" while underscoring the pervasive atmosphere of cowardice and fear within society. The tone leans more toward the informative and anecdotal rather than the data-driven, aiming specifically to shock and provoke.

The rhetorical style is highly combative and critical, employing strong ideological terms such as "delusions," "Euro-Marxism," and "supreme foolishness." The speaker utilizes irony (for example, regarding the climate topic) and presents arguments with emotional conviction, relying more on value conflicts and international examples (US injustice) than on detailed data. Personal attacks and accusations of lying are also present.

The tone of the address is anxious and urgent, warning of a potential "equally dire situation" witnessed in other countries. The style is formal (using the address "Esteemed Presenter") and relies on logical argumentation, utilizing both a quote from the head of Eesti Energia and international comparisons as supporting evidence. It concludes with a direct question demanding solutions to prevent the situation.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, emotional, and incisive, employing strong negative labeling (e.g., "toxic ideology," "madhouse"). The speaker uses historical analogies (Soviet names) and hyperbole ("150 genders") to establish a link between government policy and revolutionary absurdity. The appeals are directed primarily at moral indignation and common sense, rather than logical data analysis.

The rhetorical style is insistent, emotional, and highly critical, emphasizing moral indignation and a lack of accountability. The speaker repeatedly uses the rhetorical question, "Who is responsible?" and balances emotional appeals with details of specific cases. He demands direct and rapid solutions (e.g., dismantling networks, hiring officials).

The speaker's style is passionate, at times confrontational and ironic, utilizing highly emotional language ("monsters," "absurd," "mercilessly"). They balance logical appeals (the laws of physics, economic analyses) with personal examples and anecdotes (the Rakvere restaurant, the wind farm planned behind their own house). They employ precise terminology and introduce linguistic discussions, proposing "juhuelekter" (incidental electricity) as a particularly apt expression.

The rhetorical style is sharp, provocative, and confrontational, employing strong and derogatory metaphors (like "sheep") to characterize members of the government and the Riigikogu (Parliament). The speaker frames their position as a series of critical questions, demanding explanations for the public and using quotes to back up their arguments. The tone is more emotional and accusatory than logical or data-driven.

The style is very combative, skeptical, and cautionary, utilizing strong emotional appeals and historical parallels. The speaker uses irony, referring to the Health Board's termination of mop inspections as a "mighty achievement" in reducing bureaucracy. Logical arguments regarding the growth of bureaucracy are mixed with historical fear-mongering, citing as examples Glavlit, censorship, and the background of the informers against the Karl Vaino family.