By Plenary Sessions: Peeter Ernits

The rhetorical style is highly combative and aggressive, employing strong metaphors and derogatory expressions (e.g., "trash," "a raw and hard-to-digest hunk of meat"). The speaker relies on logical arguments and expert citations but delivers them with great emotional intensity, stressing the immaturity of the draft proposal.

The speaker's style is critical and analytical, utilizing colorful and occasionally colloquial expressions specific to the Estonian language ("botched," "stalled," "a burning issue") to criticize the legislative process. He employs rhetorical questions and philosophical discussion concerning the speed of legal progression, referencing the "whip-lash" (the fear of penalties). The tone is demanding and highlights procedural errors.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, employing strong and emotional expressions (e.g., "mud league," "driven into the ground," "deeply frustrated"). It utilizes both personal attacks (ministers fidgeting, causing disruption) and procedural appeals (calling for order regarding a racist expression). Rhetorical questions are posed to highlight the government's failures and inefficiency.

The style is direct, interrogative, and distinctly confrontational when addressing the second party. It employs logical appeals, demanding clarification from the opposing side as to how their previous unconstitutional votes (the super database) reconcile with their declared position against the preventative state. The tone is accusatory and demands accountability.

The style is sharp and confrontational, employing strong characterizations regarding the opponent's alleged positions ("the people are stupid and fat"). The speaker emphasizes the opposing side's consistent opposition, attempting to provoke an emotional reaction and expose the opponent's motives. Although the chairman and the rapporteur are addressed politely, the content itself is aggressive.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and penetrating, emphasizing the urgency of the situation ("The ground is burning under our feet"). It employs irony and sarcasm directed at the government, labeling their initiatives as "cosmetics" and the Parliament (Riigikogu) a "rubber stamp." Strong terms are utilized, such as "sadistic approach," and other politicians are quoted who refer to the EU plan as a "monstrous plan."

The rhetorical style is sharp, direct, and confrontational, employing strong metaphors (e.g., "cutting a cripple's haircut" to describe the reform). The minister is often addressed directly, with questions posed that challenge the government's competence and integrity. Irony and allusions to scandals (Slava Ukraini) are employed, and explanations are also requested in language understandable to the "common folk."

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and often sarcastic, employing colorful expressions such as the "werewolf bill" and referencing the minister's alleged comment about the weight of Estonians. He/She combines emotional appeals (concerns regarding people with disabilities) with technical and procedural issues, demanding clarity and accountability. The overall tone is accusatory, particularly toward the Riigikogu leadership concerning the scheduling of the agenda item.

The rhetorical style is highly aggressive, ironic, and confrontational, employing strong negative language such as "trash" and "nonsense." The speaker levels personal accusations regarding the minister's arrogant conduct and the insulting of colleagues, demanding procedural intervention from the chair. Emotional and personal attacks are favored over detailed logical analysis, even though the criticism initially addresses substantive issues.

The tone is predominantly confrontational, critical, and ironic, employing sharp metaphors such as "running over like a steamroller" and "putting the puppy in its place." It employs emotional appeals, highlighting the public's opposition (77,442 "no" votes) and a personal experience regarding the impact of war in the Elva municipality. It attempts to personally attack opponents, criticizing the ministers' past actions and their "braggadocio."