By Plenary Sessions: Anti Poolamets

The rhetorical style is confrontational, deeply concerned, and sharply critical, highlighting the deceitfulness and absurd phenomena of the surrounding environment. Emotional appeals are employed, referencing the laughter of schoolchildren regarding social genders and the destruction of security. The style is direct, posing questions of morality and conscience to the Supreme Court candidate.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, accusatory, and forceful, expressing disappointment with the Prime Minister's responses. The speaker employs strong emotional and moral judgments (e.g., "cynically steamrolling," "crisis of democracy") while simultaneously demanding concrete and precise information from the government regarding the actual improvement in capability.

The rhetorical style is critical and questioning, starting with polite thanks but immediately moving to sharp criticism. Logical arguments and a rhetorical question ("Isn't this also a cause for concern?") are used to emphasize the significance of the problem and the need for a solution.

The rhetoric is extremely aggressive and confrontational, employing demeaning animal metaphors (e.g., "ram," "dullard") to characterize opponents. The tone is critical and demanding, combining inquiries into political objectives with strong emotional accusations concerning the opponents' obtuse and irrational actions.

The rhetorical style is extremely emotional, cautionary, and combative, utilizing strong imagery and alarming language (e.g., comparing immigrants to predators). The appeals are directed at security fears, emphasizing the "brutal consequences" of mass immigration and the threat of a popular uprising. The speaker poses questions that call into question the government's ability to manage risks.