By Plenary Sessions: Peeter Ernits

The style is extremely combative, dramatic, and straightforward, employing powerful metaphors and historical comparisons (e.g., "steamroller," "Leonid Brezhnev," "the government of the blind and the deaf"). The speaker utilizes both logical, data-driven criticism and emotional appeals, describing social inequality ("suck your paw or chew the grass") and calling the populace to protest on Toompea.

The rhetorical style is direct and interrogative, relying heavily on rhetorical questions to challenge specific details and statistics. The tone is at times confrontational, especially when criticizing the rigidity of the Riigikogu (Parliament) and the minister's absence, using phrases like "shut up and we'll do it this way." The emphasis is placed on logical argumentation and procedural correctness.

The rhetorical style is confrontational, using blunt and colloquial phrases ("so idiotic," "you're dawdling," "a complete joke") and personal anecdotes (the visit to Vaindloo, discussing matters with Harry Männil). He employs emotional appeals, accusing the government of arrogance and of labeling critics as "Russian agents," and emphasizes the need to "bring the truth to light."

The style is formal and interrogative, especially when addressing economic logic ('What is the logic behind this?'). The speaker grounds their arguments in comparative statistical data and facts, deliberately avoiding emotional appeals. They also pay close attention to procedural details.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and even aggressive, utilizing strong and negative metaphors (e.g., "mangy badger," "rotten decayed tree," "sheep/rams"). The speaker appeals both to emotions (embarrassment, agony) and to logical criticism regarding the sloppiness and rushing of the legislative process. He/She often poses sharp rhetorical questions and personal challenges to the presenters.

The tone is critical and concerned, employing strong judgments (e.g., "exceptionally low"). The style is formal, addressing the Speaker of the Riigikogu with a rhetorical question that underscores the coalition's lack of trust and respect.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and emotionally charged, utilizing phrases such as "stubbornly" and "the lust for snooping." He poses rhetorical questions to cast doubt on the motives of his opponents and expresses impatience regarding the silence of the Eesti 200 faction on a crucial issue.

The tone is extremely confrontational, critical, and passionate, utilizing powerful emotional appeals and making direct calls for strikes. Colorful metaphors are employed (for example, referring to the government as a "rotten tree" or "bardakk" [a mess/shambles]) alongside rhetorical questions, highlighting the government's ignorance and disorganization. The style is more narrative and emotional, rather than dry and politically correct, addressing public sector workers directly.

The style is initially surprisingly appreciative and respectful towards the speaker ("such clear and smart talk"), but it quickly shifts to being critical and questioning. Both direct and figurative expressions are used (e.g., "to send to the trash can," "in a great hurry"), emphasizing the dangers inherent in haste.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and ironic, utilizing strong metaphors ("boar in the rye," "steamroller drivers," "even a pig won't eat it") and down-to-earth expressions. Literary comparisons (Tolstoy's "War and Peace") are used to emphasize the scale and complexity of the draft legislation. The speaker balances emotional condemnation (arrogance) with concrete financial data and citations (Tallink's positions).

The rhetorical style is confrontational and accusatory, posing a question that directly implies the head of government's incompetence ("Is the issue that you are simply unable to cope?"). Emotional emphasis is placed on negative statistics and international comparisons. The tone is formal (an information briefing), but the content is sharply aggressive.

The rhetorical style is very confrontational, emotional, and urgent, using strong language (e.g., "idiotic," "shambles," "laughing stock"). He supports his claims with personal experiences and dramatic elements, such as presenting security camera footage and the sound of an explosion, and showing a physical piece of the drone. The style is aimed more at storytelling and emotional impact, emphasizing the lack of trust in state leaders.

The speaking style is sharp, emotional, and often sarcastic, using strong words to describe the actions of ministers and the government, such as "slack behavior," "mass murder" (referring to the destruction of seedlings), and "war Moloch." Vivid comparisons are used (the work of a bee, a dog on a haystack) and historical parallels (the pivotal times of 1940). It favors storytelling (the milk loss of a farmer friend, the women of the Iisaku nursery) and rhetorical questions to emphasize the government's inaction and inefficiency.

The style is often confrontational and critical, employing emotional and figurative comparisons (Big Peter and Little Peter, mass murder, society's distorting mirror). He/She uses anecdotal and personal observations (visits to border checkpoints, the Palamuse fair) to illustrate the arguments. The tone is frequently concerned and urgent, particularly when addressing the destruction of state assets or injustice.