By Plenary Sessions: Rain Epler

The style is highly combative, accusatory, and forceful, employing sharp and emotional language (e.g., "lied to you," "childish prattle," "sleepwalkers," "flock of sheep"). The speaker directly appeals to the conscience of the coalition MPs, urging them to vote against the measure, while simultaneously highlighting the logical deficiencies in the draft legislation and the absence of control mechanisms.

The style is questioning, critical, and at times confrontational, utilizing rhetorical questions and direct addresses (Aivar!) aimed at the bill's presenter. The speaker relies on anecdotal evidence (the purchase of a jeep, the posting of a video) and personal perceptions to expose the opposing side's inconsistencies and political maneuvering.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and blunt, explicitly accusing the presenter of lying and contradictions. Strong emotional appeals are used, warning against the jeopardizing of democracy and the "deep state," and emphasizing that the government is "tightening the screws." The speaker also uses the cultural analogy of the "kratt" to illustrate the tireless work of artificial intelligence.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, provocative, and often confrontational, employing rhetorical questions to expose the government's illogic ("backward logic"). The speaker emphasizes personal experience (as a rural person) and offers predictions regarding future political developments across Europe. The style also incorporates personal references concerning the minister's prior business ventures.

He/She employs a sharp, sarcastic, and occasionally humorous tone, especially when exposing the demagoguery of opponents and ridiculing the activities of the ERJK (Committee for Supervising Party Financing). Alongside logical arguments and technical data, he/she prefers practical examples and personal anecdotes (the punk festival, the visit to Sopi-Tootsi) to illustrate the sheer absurdity of bureaucracy and politics. The style is direct and strives for accessibility to the general public, often utilizing colloquial expressions.

The rhetorical style is confrontational, direct, and procedurally critical. The speaker demands simple yes/no answers and criticizes the Prime Minister for leveraging his position of power when addressing procedural matters. The follow-up question concludes with a sharp challenge, casting doubt on the credibility of either the Latvian counterpart or the Prime Minister himself.