By Plenary Sessions: Peeter Ernits

The rhetorical style is confrontational and emotionally charged, using the narrative of a tragic event (the Nõo case) to illustrate the system's shortcomings. The speaker poses a direct question to the presenter, demanding a specific stance regarding the judge's accountability, which suggests it is more of a challenge than a dialogue.

The style is highly combative, emotional, and urgent, often employing strong and critical language (e.g., "grotesque," "embarrassing," "mockery"). The speaker utilizes personal anecdotes (standing in a crater, hearing a disgusting sound) to amplify political criticism and underscore the government's incompetence. They accuse the government of bluster and dishonesty, drawing analogies such as the relationship between a victim and a domestic abuser within the coalition.

The rhetorical style is sharply aggressive and ironic, employing personal and emotional accusations leveled at the government ("their hands are shaking and their gaze is dull"). The argumentation is supported by strong contrasts and international comparisons (Germany vs. Russia/Venezuela), emphasizing skepticism and distrust.

The speaking style is combative, ironic, and emotionally charged, especially towards the government and the Riigikogu leadership. Strong language is employed (e.g., "golden column," "ridiculous," "embarrassing," "humiliating"), along with cynical metaphors ("the cherry on top," "eat grass or chew on it"). The speaker frequently poses rhetorical questions and uses personal examples (such as the Tarmo case) to highlight the consequences of the policies.

The rhetorical style is highly confrontational, accusatory, and urgent, addressing the chairman directly with a sharp remark ("that you finally noticed"). Emotional and informal expressions ("complete nonsense") are used to discredit the Prime Minister's response, focusing on procedural and moral condemnation rather than logic.

The style is predominantly critical and direct, employing specific and dramatic stories—such as the case of Tarmo—to illustrate systemic failure. The speaker uses emotionally charged and sharp language ("Taliban-like suicide attack") and directs pointed rhetorical questions at the minister, yet remains pragmatic and focused on figures when addressing economic topics.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, emotional, and insistent, repeatedly expressing rage and dissatisfaction with the government's actions and the procedures of the Riigikogu (Parliament). Shock tactics are employed (dog food, the suicide terrorist Tarmo) along with rhetorical questions to emphasize the gravity of the social emergency. He criticizes the debate as "a pleasant ritual dance" where no answers are provided, and frequently addresses an empty chamber.