By Plenary Sessions: Anti Poolamets

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and sarcastic, employing strong emotional terminology such as "dystopia," "climate sectarianism," and "cruel, deceitful, and hostile to nature." The speaker ridicules opponents for their lack of knowledge and stresses the negative social consequences of the policy. The speaker relies more on value judgments and confrontation rather than detailed policy analysis.

The rhetorical style is very combative, insistent, and at times alarmist, utilizing dramatic threat scenarios (e.g., masses fleeing St. Petersburg, million-strong columns in Europe). The speaker uses both logical arguments (legal references) and emotional appeal to emphasize the value of citizenship and the government's immaturity. Strong judgments are used, such as "state-legal nihilism" and "collective privileging," and many rhetorical questions are posed.

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative and accusatory, particularly concerning economic and social issues, demanding honesty from the prime minister. Heavily charged ideological language is employed, referring to subsidies as "laundering money for extremism" and the supported groups as "gangs of extremists." The speaker backs up their claims with specific, high inflation percentages.

The speaker’s style is predominantly combative, serious, and insistent, utilizing strong emotional appeals, such as references to "national defense bankruptcy" and "the biggest concern of the century." He balances these emotional warnings with concrete data and historical examples (the VEB Fund commission). Opponents are sharply criticized, calling into question both their competence and their motives.

The rhetorical style is demanding, critical, and straightforward, aimed at eliciting answers and holding the executive branch accountable. Logical arguments and references to previous failures are used to underscore the riskiness of the proposals and the importance of Parliament's role. The speaker poses many questions to highlight the lack of knowledge on the part of the minister or rapporteur, for instance, regarding the legal basis of the operation in Syria.

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, accusatory, and condemnatory, employing strong emotional appeals and sharp personal attacks. The speaker uses metaphors ("the mother-in-law's cupboard is bottomless") and historical parallels (a law with the flavor of 1934) to emphasize the unethical and dangerous nature of the government's actions. The tone is urgent and cautionary, highlighting the contradiction between words and deeds.

The style is predominantly urgent, demanding, and critical, utilizing strong metaphors to highlight the seriousness of the situation ("the elephant in the room," "putting out the fire"). The speaker explicitly accuses the police of incompetence and demands concrete proposals and practical solutions from the government. The tone is formal, addressing the minister and the presenter directly.