By Months: Ants Frosch
Total Months: 10
Fully Profiled: 10
12.2024
2 Speeches
The style is formal and analytical, focusing on presenting concrete, fact-based questions to the minister. The tone is critical and concerned, especially regarding environmental threats, relying on logical arguments and technical details rather than emotional appeals.
11.2024
6 Speeches
The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, focusing primarily on posing questions and dissecting legal constructs. The tone is predominantly logical and factual, seeking clarification regarding legal foundations and historical context. Although a moderate emotional appeal was also employed when addressing social topics (joy and happiness for families), the formal, interrogative approach remains dominant.
10.2024
7 Speeches
The rhetorical style is critical and demanding, utilizing historical parallels (2004, 2006, 2014) to highlight current issues. The tone is formal and analytical, focusing on the incompetence of government activity and the absence of control. It employs strong assessments, such as "bunglingly," and poses direct questions regarding responsibility and oversight.
09.2024
6 Speeches
The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and often confrontational, centering on the correction of inaccuracies and falsehoods (assertions and commentary). To sharpen the critique, historical and literary references are employed (such as Alexandre Dumas' quote, "the time of grocers") to characterize the opposing party's decisions as short-sighted. A significant portion of these appearances is dedicated to verifying and correcting specific facts.
07.2024
3 Speeches
The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and critical, posing questions to the prime ministerial candidate. Logical arguments are employed, emphasizing that what is important is what is missing from the coalition agreement, not what is actually written in it. The speaker demands accountability, utilizing a powerful metaphor ("you are, figuratively speaking, also putting the State Secretary on the spot").
05.2024
15 Speeches
The speaker's rhetorical style is insistent, critical, and at times combative, employing strong metaphors ("the e-tiger is essentially naked," "Carthage must be destroyed") and historical quotes (Abraham Lincoln). He/She balances procedural logic (referencing laws and reports) with moral and emotional appeals (demanding humanity and criticizing negligence). The tone is formal yet direct, often posing sharp questions.
04.2024
16 Speeches
The rhetorical style is sharp, dramatic, and confrontational, employing emotional appeals and anecdotes (Kafka’s "The Trial," the officer’s anecdote) to highlight systemic problems. Strong warnings are used (a terrorist act is "not if, but when"), and it is stressed that this is "a matter of life and death." The e-voting debate concluded with a provocative, "Trumpian" call for hackers to attack the system.
03.2024
13 Speeches
The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and dramatic, employing strong metaphors such as "schizophrenic split," "Game of Thrones," and "blood money." Although the appeals are legally justified (citing amendments to the law and statements made by the Director General of KAPO), they are presented to emphasize the moral and security threat. The tone is predominantly accusatory and demanding.
02.2024
8 Speeches
The rhetorical style is critical, resolute, and at times sharp, particularly when procedural issues are being debated. Strong metaphors are employed to characterize the opposition's activities, such as "carrying water with a sieve" and "salami slicing tactics." The atmosphere within the Riigikogu chamber is also criticized, described by the phrase "a friend skins a friend." The appeals themselves are a blend of meticulous logical precision (error correction) and an emotional demand for justice.
01.2024
14 Speeches
The speaker's style is formal and often critical, employing strong value judgments (e.g., "catastrophic" traffic intensity, "scooter hooliganism"). They pose numerous questions to the Prime Minister and the ministers, demanding clarifications and ethical stances. To illustrate their points, they utilize both historical parallels (the removal of monuments) and an anecdote (the experience in Strasbourg).