By Plenary Sessions: Anti Poolamets

The rhetorical style is unusual and performative, employing a long, ironic poem ("Green Christmas") and humor. The tone is mixed with humor, at times fatalistic ("there are no white Christmases anymore"), and emphasizes emotional and cultural appeal. There is also some light, personal, and spontaneous interaction (such as asking for a bottle of water).

The rhetorical style is highly combative, cautionary, and alarmist, employing strong emotional appeals (e.g., "neo-totalitarian approach," "striking with a sledgehammer"). It backs its arguments with legal references (such as the Opinion of the Legal and Analysis Department) to lend legal weight to the critique, but the overall tone remains accusatory and insistent.

The style is highly confrontational, accusatory, and sharp, utilizing strong emotional appeals and labeling ("your favorite instrument – hate speech"). The speaker poses challenging rhetorical questions to force the opponent to define boundaries, and accuses them of suppressing the free exchange of ideas. Direct and judgmental phrases are used, such as "a serious flaw" (or "major blunder") and "an old trick to suppress opponents."

The speaking style is extremely critical and anxious, employing strong, negative metaphors such as "the dream of an economic murderer" and "shutting off the oxygen supply." He/She balances these emotional appeals (the people are becoming impoverished) with concrete data and statistical evidence (e.g., electricity 100 times more expensive than in Finland, a 7% drop in beer sales).

The rhetorical style is insistent and combative, employing an alarming tone to highlight the government's inaction and the inherent dangers, going so far as to label the administration "the greatest creators of uncertainty." The speech utilizes both logical arguments (e.g., the lack of necessary studies) and emotional appeals (e.g., undermining public trust, drawing historical parallels to the Phosphorite War). The speaker maintains a formal demeanor but demands accountability and concrete answers from the minister.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, employing strong emotional language (e.g., "mutilation," "dirty person"). Historical analogies are drawn upon (WWI, Belgium), and unpredictable threats are highlighted (Taiwan, the domino effect), along with the necessity for critical analysis. The tone is anxious and urgent, particularly concerning issues of security and parliamentary rights.

The rhetorical style is urgent and critical, focusing on logical arguments and highlighting contradictions within the government's messaging. The speaker employs international comparisons (Sweden's resolute ban) and references authoritative sources (Defense Force leaders) to underscore the gravity of the situation. Direct questions are used, along with expressions like "a hodgepodge" and "hitting a brick wall," to illustrate the scope of the problem.

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, employing the salutation "Esteemed presenter!". The focus is placed on logical appeal, demanding specific examples and justifications to grasp the motivation underpinning the policy.

The rhetorical style is direct, formal, and questioning, with the goal of obtaining factual information from the minister. The tone is investigative, attempting to verify circulating rumors regarding the irregular collection of excise duty. The appeal is purely logical and data-based.