By Plenary Sessions: Anti Poolamets

The rhetoric is extremely combative, passionate, and forceful, employing strong moral and emotional appeals, such as "humiliation" and "satanic." The speaker draws on historical parallels (the Crusades, the authoritarian era) to discredit the actions of their opponents, whom they accuse of brutality and vulgarity. The tone is confrontational, demanding that the opponents leave the party and uphold human dignity.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and urgent, employing strong ideological labels (such as "Marxist program" and "politruk"). The speaker highlights the opposition's incompetence and arrogant conduct, utilizing rhetorical questions and calls to action. The tone is critical and demands immediate steps (specifically, moving forward with a vote of no confidence).

The rhetorical style is highly combative and critical, employing emotional and ideological terms such as "enthusiasm-based," "confused understanding," and "European Siberia." Strong historical analogies are used, and attention is drawn to opponents' personal shortcomings and previous insults (citing Jürgen Ligi as an example), calling his behavior "recidivist."

The rhetorical style is solemn, urgent, and emphasizes duty, employing strong moral appeals linked to national memory and the crimes against humanity described as the most heinous in history. The speaker uses formal language, balancing the emotional duty to remember with concrete institutional and legal proposals. The tone is predominantly serious and demanding, stressing that they are dealing with the absolute minimum.

The rhetorical style is highly formal and courteous, respectfully addressing both the chairperson and the presenter ("Esteemed Presenter!"). The discourse is logical and focuses on requesting specific information or practical recommendations, maintaining an inquisitive and businesslike tone.

The rhetorical style is formal and critical, expressing skepticism about the timing of the policy using the phrase, "That raises an eyebrow." The speaker relies on logical arguments and statistical data, posing questions regarding the policy's social impact and the complexity of administrative procedures.

The rhetorical style is extremely forceful, combative, and critical, employing strong emotional appeals and warning of catastrophic consequences. Rhetorical questions are utilized to criticize other political parties for failing to raise the issue, and the metaphor "Brezhnev package" is used to describe the dangerous content of the draft bill. The speaker demands the immediate halt of the matter, stressing the urgency of the situation.

The style is critical and concerned, utilizing rhetorical questions to express frustration and skepticism regarding policy changes. The speaker employs strong emotional appeals and concrete examples (such as Siim Kallas's derisive remark) to sharply criticize the societal attitude. The tone is rather combative, emphasizing the value of a previous achievement (consensus) and the negative impact of its dismissal.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and urgent, employing strong emotional appeals and historical parallels (the Stalin era, the Lasnamäe slogan). The speaker levels direct accusations concerning the prime minister's irresponsibility and failure to possess historical memory. Questions are utilized to highlight the opaqueness surrounding the motives behind the government's decisions.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and accusatory, employing strong language (e.g., "your government's great service," "completely incomprehensible"). Rhetorical questions are utilized (How would you like to encourage Latvia?) and logical contradictions are highlighted, such as the conflict between developing Ida-Virumaa and simultaneously neglecting road construction. The tone is rather emotional and urgent, demanding explanations and action from the government.