By Plenary Sessions: Helir-Valdor Seeder

The rhetorical style is serious and pressing, emphasizing the complexity of security threats and the government's inaction. It employs both logical arguments (risk mitigation, freeing up resources) and emotional appeals to statesmanship and patriotism. The speaker frequently uses rhetorical questions to cast doubt on the opponents' motives and the public's trust in the government.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and confrontational, accusing the government of irresponsible conduct and demagoguery. Both logical arguments (such as predicting a change in government and subsequent chaos) and moral appeals (a demand for accountability) are employed. The tone is formal yet insistent, focusing on highlighting the political consequences.

The speaker adopts a confrontational, logically reasoned, and resolute style. He sharply criticizes the presiding officer, accusing him of wasting time and making irrelevant and misleading remarks. He uses the metaphor of "talking about the fence and the hole in the fence" to emphasize the chairman's misplaced focus, basing his arguments on legal provisions and established practices.

The rhetorical style is questioning and critical, employing logical arguments and rhetorical questions to challenge the justification of the draft bill and the credibility of the committee. The tone is formal and centers on procedural details, addressing the committee representative directly. Finally, a specific procedural request is presented: to put the proposed amendment to a vote.