By Plenary Sessions: Kalle Grünthal
Total Sessions: 141
Fully Profiled: 141
2025-10-15
The 15th Riigikogu, VI Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is direct, formal, and strongly adversarial, especially regarding the minister's responses. The speaker relies on logical and factual arguments (democratic representation, the age of the studies) and expresses their dissatisfaction with the answers openly and resolutely, stating: "I inform you that your answer is unsatisfactory."
2025-10-08
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and confrontational, employing strong metaphors, such as comparing Andre Hanimäe's speech to the storming of the Winter Palace. The appeals are primarily logical, relying on the constitution and the opinions of top legal experts, but they also include emotional warnings about a "digital concentration camp."
2025-10-07
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is demanding and critical, particularly towards the session's chairman, insisting on the stricter application of rules and demanding that order be maintained. On substantive matters, the style is confrontational and highlights moral injustice, employing strong logical contrast (large salary increases versus minimal support). The language used is formal, focusing on legislation and figures, and requires direct justification from the government.
2025-10-06
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is highly combative and accusatory, employing strong emotional and historical parallels (communism, forced collectivization) to delegitimize the policy. The speaker launches sharp personal attacks, accusing the Minister of Finance of pursuing Soviet communist policies.
2025-09-24
Fifteenth Riigikogu, sixth sitting, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is confrontational, cautionary, and accusatory, employing powerful metaphors, such as "digital concentration camp." Appeals are made both to logic (through detailed citation of laws and specific legal sections) and to emotion (by referencing the loss of independence and the elements of a crime). The tone is formal, yet sharp in substance, accusing the opposition of violating the constitution.
2025-09-23
15th Riigikogu, 6th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is questioning, critical, and concerned, focusing on logical arguments and practical examples (e.g., lease agreements, scam emails). The speaker attempts to clarify complex topics using plain language to emphasize the threat posed to consumer and national security. The tone is formal and procedural, demanding accountability and the implementation of measures.
2025-09-22
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
The style is combative and insistent, utilizing strong emotional appeals for public resistance and the rediscovery of the will for freedom. Historical comparisons are used (serfdom, the St. George's Night Uprising) alongside personal stories (a phone call, a meeting with entrepreneurs) to substantiate the claims. The tone is sharply critical of the government and "warmongers," accusing them of ignorance and the destruction of the state.
2025-09-17
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is extremely combative, critical, and forceful, employing strong emotional appeals while comparing the situation to totalitarianism and the Novgorod Veche. The speaker levels direct accusations against the government and the rapporteur (e.g., regarding hearing difficulties) and utilizes legal references to criminalize the actions of their opponents. The overall tone is formal, yet highly confrontational.
2025-09-16
Fifteenth Riigikogu, sixth sitting, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is serious, critical, and procedural, posing direct and demanding questions to the Chancellor of Justice. The appeal is primarily logical and legal, focusing on procedural errors (failure to notify) and the absence of sanctions. The speaker uses strong terms such as "rummaging" and "snooping" to emphasize the seriousness of the violations.
2025-09-10
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
The style is highly confrontational, accusatory, and provocative, focusing on undermining the minister's credibility. Strong historical and medical examples are used as a logical appeal to demonstrate the mutability of science. The speech concludes with a direct public challenge to the minister to participate in a debate to determine "who prevails."
2025-09-10
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, press briefing
The rhetorical style is formal ("Esteemed Chairman of the Session"), yet it carries an ironic or skeptical tone, employing a rhetorical question ("Has the composition of the Riigikogu been reduced in the meantime?") to highlight the poor attendance. The speech is short and direct, focusing on the procedural incongruity.
2025-09-09
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is provocative and alarming, using public assessment as a pretext to highlight an extremely serious security threat. The speaker employs quotation (President Karis) and the opinion of a third party (a clever man) to underscore the threat of Russia arming the fifth column, posing the question formally, but accusatorily in substance.
2025-09-04
15th Riigikogu, extraordinary session of the Riigikogu
The speaker's style is predominantly confrontational, aggressive, and moralizing, repeatedly leveling direct accusations at the session chair regarding violations of the law and the fabrication of untruths. He uses strong emotional appeals (e.g., "you are playing with fire," "shameful," "cancer") and populist phrases ("Estonian banana republic"), while backing up his positions with legal details. He also employs dramatic gestures, such as declaring a strike and presenting a smoked pig’s head as a gift.
2025-06-19
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is extremely serious and critical, highlighting the gravity of the situation ("extremely serious"). It employs strong logical arguments grounded in legal definitions and references to constitutional breaches. The speaker utilizes rhetorical questions to underscore the necessity and potential avenues for halting the process.
2025-06-17
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetoric is extremely combative, categorical, and alarm-sounding, utilizing powerful emotional appeals and historical parallels (Gestapo, NKVD, Stasi). The argumentation relies both on legal bases (the Constitution, the Code of Criminal Procedure) and rhetorical questions, accusing opponents of "muddying the waters" and favoring totalitarianism.
2025-06-16
XV Riigikogu, V Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is direct, demanding, and challenging, questioning the minister's claims and assumptions regarding the behavior of local governments. The speaker employs logical argumentation, highlighting the scale of the problem (tens of thousands of families) and calling for concrete legislative solutions. The tone is rather procedural and concerned, underscoring the lack of protection for rights.
2025-06-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is highly combative, emotional, and direct, employing strong language and rhetorical questions ("Have you gone completely mad?"). Historical references (Lenin, the revolution) and provocative analogies (statistical money in the store, instruments of rape) are used to emphasize the absurdity and unconstitutionality of the government's actions. The tone is predominantly accusatory and urgent, demanding immediate change.
2025-06-10
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is critical and concerned, focusing on logical arguments and concrete examples (the Chancellor of Justice's triple intervention). The emotionally charged term "steamroller tactics" is used to describe the coalition's actions. The presentation is formal and aimed at raising the question to find a legal resolution.
2025-06-09
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and urgent, employing strong language (e.g., "mumbo-jumbo," "flailing") to characterize the government's actions. The speaker relies on facts and legal arguments but adds emotional warnings regarding the dangers of a surveillance society and the illegal surveillance activities reminiscent of the Soviet era. He focuses on refuting the Prime Minister's claims, stressing that his arguments are based purely on facts.
2025-06-04
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is a blend of logical argumentation (referencing scientists, WHO guidelines, and historical facts) and strong emotional and graphic language, particularly on the topic of mines. The tone is often critical and challenging, accusing opponents of outdated thinking or a lack of resolve. Strong metaphors concerning independence and liberation are employed (Moscow vs. Brussels, Pandora's box).
2025-06-04
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, press briefing
The style is confrontational and insistent, starting with a direct challenge to the minister's information ("absolutely false"). Emotional accusations are used (e.g., "mafia-like activity"), and specific data is demanded (the number of complaints and proceedings) to support the assertion regarding the seriousness of the problem.
2025-06-03
Fifteenth Riigikogu, fifth session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is direct, demanding, and confrontational, especially towards the presenter, ironically referencing the "overflowing speech about the positivity of Rail Baltic." The speaker employs a logical appeal, demanding verification of the facts, and concludes by expressing sharp doubt regarding the reliability of the information provided ("Are you telling the truth here, or are you just making things up?").
2025-04-24
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is critical, questioning, and concerned, focusing on logical and technical arguments (e.g., the lack of reserve capacity). Accusations of concealing information are used ("it is being hidden very diligently"), and direct, detailed questions are posed, demanding concrete answers.
2025-04-23
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, populist, and insistent, especially when discussing issues of sovereignty and the economy. Strong metaphors are employed (e.g., "steamroller," "the jaw-flapping club," "ballast"), along with direct emotional appeals to the public. The speech concludes with a call for spontaneous resistance against the government's "brutality," balancing the legal analysis with a powerful emotional charge.
2025-04-22
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is initially formal and inquisitive, but it quickly shifts to critical and cautionary, emphasizing the danger of heading down the "slippery slope." The speaker relies on logical arguments to demonstrate the injustice and inequality involved in the application of discretionary power, while simultaneously employing emotional warnings regarding the potential for abuse of authority.
2025-04-15
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session.
The rhetorical style is passionate and critical, blending legal arguments (such as constitutional violations) with appeals to emotional and traditional values (the image of a respectable taxi driver, the white shirt). The text employs sharp and sometimes derogatory language ("the inarticulate," "Ugri-Mugri language," "scam taxi drivers") and uses personal anecdotes (being misled, receiving an abusive letter) to illustrate the issues. The overall tone is urgent and insistent, demanding that "order be established."
2025-04-10
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is highly combative, emotional, and condemnatory, aimed especially at the coalition members. Sharp language is employed, accusing the coalition of hypocrisy ("sycophantically fawning") and merely following orders. The speaker strongly appeals to democratic legitimacy and the will of the people, utilizing the interventions of the Chancellor of Justice as an emotional argument.
2025-04-09
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is sharp, direct, and provocative, presenting difficult tasks to the presenter and demanding specific, individualized answers. Logical arguments (such as unconstitutionality) are used, mixed with criticism aimed at the coalition—for instance, questioning their poor attendance at the session. The speaker demands accountability and clear, concise communication, delivered in a way that is understandable even to coalition members.
2025-04-08
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is instructive and self-assured, offering the public a concrete legal action plan for challenging the car tax. The tone is logical and procedure-focused, concentrating on arguments based on the violation of law. The speaker attempts to convince the audience of the effectiveness of their strategy ("Why is this good? Because it stops the implementation of the car tax").
2025-03-27
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is inquisitive, persistent, and clarifying, focusing on logical clarity. The speaker employs repeated questions ("I would still like to clarify") to ensure an unambiguous interpretation of the rules, while maintaining a formal tone.
2025-03-26
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, press briefing
The rhetorical style is formal and procedural, posing a question to the Board of the Riigikogu for legal clarification. The tone is critical, referencing the expectation of "not lying" and focusing on the logical argumentation regarding the boundaries of law and immunity.
2025-03-25
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is confrontational, demanding, and testing, calling into question the preparation and knowledge of the bill's presenter. Strong emotional comparisons are utilized (a reference to the Soviet Union) to emphasize the danger of losing independence, combining this with a precise analysis of legal details.
2025-03-24
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session.
The style is critical and forceful, emphasizing the priority of safety and national defense. It employs strong contrasts (national defense versus supporting foreign companies) and logical analogies (traffic safety) to justify the danger inherent in the lack of regulation. It appeals to national consensus, asserting that there is no one in Estonia who would argue against the importance of national defense.
2025-03-19
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The speaking style is sharp, direct, and highly emotional, using letters from reservists to underscore the gravity of the situation and appeal directly to the audience's conscience. The speaker employs powerful metaphors ("the king is naked," the government "spits in the face of reservists") and accuses the government of blatant disregard. Although specific figures are presented, the argumentation is primarily moral and value-based, stressing the urgent need for immediate action.
2025-03-18
Fifteenth Riigikogu, fifth sitting, plenary session
The speaker's style is highly confrontational and aggressive, utilizing personal accusations (for example, accusing the minister of "mania grandiosa," or delusions of grandeur) and casting doubt on the presenter's competence. The speaker merges legal and procedural demands (such as requesting specific norms) with powerful emotional and ideological appeals concerning the decline of the nation. The overall tone is accusatory and demanding.
2025-03-17
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The tone is urgent and concerned regarding the seriousness of the issue, describing the demographic problem as "very acute." When raising the question, the speaker is direct and procedural, employing a logical appeal, referencing the authority of scientists and previous practice in establishing task forces.
2025-03-13
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is provocative, skeptical, and forceful, starting with the delivery of dry, official information and then transitioning to the citation of extreme theories. Strong emotional appeals and rhetorical questions are used to challenge official standpoints and instill doubt in the listeners.
2025-03-12
15th Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session
The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and direct, employing strong institutional arguments. To emphasize accountability, a simple yet powerful analogy from everyday life is utilized (the firing of an arrogant employee). The tone is logical and procedural rather than emotional, focusing instead on exposing rule violations.
2025-02-27
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is highly confrontational, accusatory, and emotional, centering on the minister's personal responsibility and lack of integrity. The speaker levels direct accusations of lying ("two instances of lying") and demands that the deceit cease. Strong emotional appeals are employed, calling into question the minister's concern for the health of the Estonian people, along with a simple analogy (a vehicle technical inspection) used to clarify the arguments.
2025-02-26
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is sharp, demanding, and at times confrontational, especially towards the minister and the presenter. Emotionally charged and critical expressions are used (e.g., "pseudo-science," "off the leash," "lifesaver"), and the necessity of addressing responsibility and uncomfortable topics is emphasized. The speaker employs logical appeals to defend a good idea against technical shortcomings, but their interaction with the minister is strongly accusatory.
2025-02-25
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is highly confrontational and aggressive, featuring personal remarks regarding the presenter's appearance, intellect, and behavior. The speaker employs emotional and occasionally inappropriate language ("What the hell is that?", "playing dumb") and repeatedly demands detailed explanations, accusing the presenter of dodging the question. The overall tone is critical and condemnatory, stressing the lack of substance.
2025-02-19
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is highly confrontational and accusatory, utilizing strong historical comparisons (Stalin, Viktor Kingissepp) and direct personal attacks against the minister. Although legal arguments are presented, the tone is emotionally charged, and the opponent is accused of living in "a world of flags and slogans."
2025-02-17
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and insistent, employing strong emotional expressions such as "shamelessness" and "unlawful activity" directed at the Climate Minister. The speaker relies both on specific legal statutes and rhetorical questions to emphasize the government's lack of response and the gravity of the problem. He uses repetition (e.g., "highly toxic") and promises to continue the action until answers are received.
2025-02-12
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is extremely combative, aggressive, and features personal attacks. Strong emotional appeals and accusations are employed, labeling the prime minister a dictator and the government's actions a mafia. The speaker accuses opponents of spreading misinformation and acting contrary to the spirit of the law, maintaining a very tense and demanding tone.
2025-02-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The style is confrontational and direct, particularly when criticizing the minister’s conduct, employing strongly condemnatory and emotional phrases such as "utterly disgraceful," "inappropriate," and "vile remarks." The speaker attempts to position themselves as a neutral messenger in the initial address, but proceeds to pose provocative questions that cast doubt on the government's foreign policy stances. Emphasis is placed on the necessity of "curbing the minister's reckless language."
2025-01-29
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is sharply critical and at times emotional, employing rhetorical questions and metaphors ("embarrassing," "schoolboys in the corner") to shame opponents. However, the argumentation remains strongly logical and legally grounded, referencing constitutional principles and general principles of law. The overall tone is urgent, stressing the necessity of immediately beginning to limit the power of officials.
2025-01-28
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The tone is critical and urgent, particularly regarding the failure to comply with the law, and the speaker respectfully addresses the minister. Rhetorical questions ("Why is this law not being complied with?") and emotional examples (a demand to speak Russian in a shop) are used to emphasize the seriousness of the problem and the endangerment of the Estonian language.
2025-01-27
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is extremely provocative, aggressive, and offensive, utilizing emotional and extreme analogies to discredit opponents. The speech maintains a low level of formality and relies on ridiculing the opposing side, comparing them to mentally ill individuals who believe themselves to be great historical figures.
2025-01-22
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is variable, ranging from detailed legal criticism to highly sarcastic and emotional expression. The speaker frequently uses informative and straightforward language ("What a ridiculous draft bill," "Good grief") and irony, especially when addressing social and economic issues. In foreign policy debates, the tone is logical and demanding, stressing the preference for mathematical laws and evidence over political consensus.
2025-01-22
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, information briefing
The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and forceful, incorporating both logical arguments (gaps in the law) and powerful emotional comparisons (likening infrasound to invisible but deadly radioactive radiation). Direct accusations are leveled against the implementation of policies that disregard human health, and rhetorical questions are raised regarding the poor quality of measuring devices.
2025-01-15
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The speaker’s rhetorical style is confrontational, direct, and manipulative, presenting the rapporteur with a loaded question that casts doubt on the opposing side’s commitment to improving the health of the Estonian people. When the question is posed, the respondent is strictly required to use a predetermined answer format ("Because..."), which demonstrates an intent to control and discredit the opponent’s arguments.
2025-01-15
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, information briefing
The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotional, expressing "a very serious protest." The speaker employs strong personal attacks (e.g., "brazenly," "circus") and demands equal treatment from the presiding officer.
2025-01-14
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is critical and combative, employing strong figurative expressions (e.g., "rats in the granary," "Indian caste system") to underscore the injustice. The tone is formal (using addresses like "Esteemed Chair of the Session"), but the content is emotionally charged, urgently demanding explanations and justifications regarding the disparity in transparency.
2025-01-13
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is critical and concerned, emphasizing the "astonishing" fact of the lack of knowledge. The appeal is rather logical and fact-based, relying on specific statements and procedural errors made by institutions (the Health Board). The address is formal, directed at the session chairman and the minister.
2024-12-19
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is combative, satirical, and highly informal, utilizing the Santa Claus narrative to deliver sharp political criticism. The speaker emphasizes injustice through emotional appeals and employs a physical gesture (a reference to a short-sleeved shirt) to demonstrate their resilience and nonconformity.
2024-12-18
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is confrontational, demanding, and direct, especially in the second speech, where the opponent’s intellect and knowledge are scrutinized. Strong metaphors are employed, comparing the danger of infrasound to radioactive radiation in order to highlight the seriousness and invisibility of the issue. The speaker demands fact-based answers, rejecting vague references to “common sense.”
2024-12-17
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and directly interrogative, focusing purely on logical and legal argumentation. The speaker poses pointed questions, demanding specific explanations and references to legal norms in order to challenge the legality of the current procedure. The tone is skeptical and demanding, stressing that objections regarding authorization are known but are not accepted.
2024-12-11
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is highly combative, confrontational, and accusatory, employing powerful metaphors such as "drunk driver" and "disciples of darkness." It balances references to scientific sources (WHO, studies) with intense emotional and moral appeals (health harms, lying, the Nuremberg trials). The speaker is direct and often personally aggressive, demanding specific answers and accusing opponents of incompetence.
2024-12-05
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and concerned, relying on extensive personal legal experience. The speaker presents their claims with great conviction, asserting the danger of parental manipulation with 101% certainty. Logical appeals are employed to highlight systemic flaws, and the speaker directly questions the presenter regarding the absence of data.
2024-12-04
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary sitting
The tone is extremely combative, accusatory, and dramatic, utilizing strong emotional appeals. It employs sharp metaphors, labeling the government a "state criminal mafia" and accusing them of the "physical destruction" of the Estonian people and "intentional killing for the sake of business interests." It addresses the audience directly as "Good people of Estonia" and uses rhetorical questions to underscore the unreasonableness of the government's actions.
2024-12-04
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, press briefing
The rhetorical style is critical, demanding, and procedurally precise. The speaker employs logical arguments, highlighting the failure to adhere to the proper sequence for ensuring safety and developing legislation. Follow-up questions demand the intervention of the presiding officer to ensure the minister answers the specific question that was asked, demonstrating resolve.
2024-12-03
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is extremely combative, emotional, and moralizing, employing strong language and insults (e.g., "fool's cap," "bastard opportunity"). Alongside logical arguments, strong natural analogies (such as the example of the mother bear) and rhetorical questions are utilized to emphasize the danger of the bill and the responsibility of the opponents. The tone is accusatory and urgent.
2024-11-20
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The speaker's style is confrontational, critical, and highly formal, centering on logical and legal arguments. They pose sharp, repetitive questions, accusing the opposing party (the committee chairman) of being ignorant of elementary constitutional matters. The tone is accusatory and demanding, particularly when criticizing procedural deficiencies.
2024-11-19
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, respectfully addressing the presiding officer of the session. The speaker presents a logical description of the problem, acknowledging the inevitability of the situation, but subsequently offering a pragmatic solution. The speech concludes with a direct question seeking the chairman's opinion.
2024-11-14
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is highly combative, emotional, and accusatory, employing sharp language (shameful, humiliating, repression) directed at the police and the government. It relies on specific and detailed case analyses (Lihula, Sinimäed) and personal appraisals to underscore the gravity of the situation. It presents its positions as a blend of logical-legal arguments and emotional appeals, urging colleagues to support national sentiments.
2024-11-13
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is extremely combative, dramatic, and urgent, employing powerful metaphors (e.g., fixing a pocket watch with a sledgehammer, the Potemkin village). The speaker addresses "the people of Estonia" directly, combining procedural criticism with an emotional call for political resistance. An accusatory tone is used, referencing the government's bunglers and the theory of an experimental state designated by Brussels.
2024-11-13
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, information briefing
The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and insistent in its questioning, focusing on a specific and recent crisis ("Tonight"). It employs a logical appeal, emphasizing the government's responsibility and demanding a practical solution in the form of compensation for damages.
2024-11-12
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is combative, dramatic, and cautionary, employing powerful emotional appeals and metaphors such as "Estonia's crown jewel" and "greedy hands." The speaker emphasizes an urgent threat and directly accuses the opposition of lying and concealing information, while also referencing historical resistance during the Soviet Union era. He utilizes logical argumentation, citing specific legal statutes, but combines this approach with accusations of conspiracy.
2024-11-11
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The speaker's rhetorical style is highly combative and critical, employing emotional language (e.g., describing the situation as an "unpleasant film" and referring to a "murderous bill"). They frequently pose sharp rhetorical questions to highlight their opponents' moral inconsistency and lack of competence.
2024-11-07
15th Parliament, 4th sitting, plenary session
The style is predominantly confrontational, sarcastic, and direct. It incorporates both personal remarks (such as the waitress's "well-fed" state) and political threats (a fatal impact on the elections). The speaker employs pragmatic expressions ("half an egg is better than an empty shell") and presents their viewpoints argumentatively, relying on historical and technical examples.
2024-11-06
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotionally charged, employing strong expressions like "tactical nuclear bomb" and "dirty tricks." The focus is on exposing the opponents' dishonesty and making moral appeals, demanding the restoration of integrity and the clearing of reputations.
2024-11-05
Fifteenth Riigikogu, fourth session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is confrontational, demanding, and formal, focusing on challenging factual assertions and procedural grounds. Logical appeals are employed, requiring specific data (historical temperature) and constitutional explanations. The speaker emphasizes the fundamental importance of the issues, rather than merely "nitpicking."
2024-10-23
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is predominantly aggressive, confrontational, and personal, often employing medical diagnoses and mocking humor to discredit opponents. Attacks specifically aimed at Jürgen Ligi are extremely personal and humiliating. When addressing social issues, strong emotional appeals and absurd exaggerations (such as cat litter or demanding human flesh) are utilized to underscore their stance against perceived societal nonsense.
2024-10-22
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and confrontational, featuring personal attacks (for example, mentioning the Minister of Finance’s personality disorder). Strong emotional and historical appeals are employed, comparing the harmonization of EU regulations to Soviet Union practices in order to highlight the threat of losing independence. Logical questions are posed that challenge both current practices and the legal-political rationale behind them.
2024-10-17
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary sitting
The style is formal, analytical, and principle-driven, focusing on logical and legal argumentation. The speaker first defines the technical terms and then presents their position regarding constitutionality. Rhetorical questions are employed ("How do you evaluate my line of reasoning?", "What is your assessment?") to engage the listener and demand a legal assessment from the opposing party.
2024-10-16
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and includes personal attacks, referring to the minister as a "globalist cog" and dismissing his talk as "insipid." The speaker frequently employs rhetorical questions and references to authoritative sources (the Constitution, a well-known national leader) to underscore their position. The tone is predominantly accusatory and urgent, highlighting public discontent and the possibility of a nationwide strike.
2024-10-16
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th sitting, press briefing
The style is confrontational, dramatic, and direct, utilizing strong language (e.g., "destroying the economy"). The speaker employs irony and illustration, referencing the government's preparations for suppressing demonstrations with water cannons. He/She attempts to create tension by asking the minister directly what coercive measures are planned to be used to prevent a widespread strike.
2024-10-15
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is highly aggressive and confrontational, featuring direct personal attacks and accusations of inconsistency. Folk wisdom is employed ("you cannot run after two rabbits at once"), and the opponent's past promises are contrasted with their current actions to highlight political hypocrisy. The speech concludes with a sharp and personal rhetorical question concerning the opponent's intelligence.
2024-10-14
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is highly aggressive, accusatory, and emotionally charged, utilizing strong phrases such as "collusion," "a corruption-tinged bill," and "a retaliatory measure." The appeals rely both on legal arguments (the Constitution) and simple, everyday examples (court proceedings, accessing basic necessities). The speaker also employs colorful metaphors, such as the Justice Minister’s attempt "to wash dirty laundry white, which is so filthy that it cannot be cleaned even with Ariel."
2024-10-08
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, accusatory, and insistent, especially when addressing the government, which is accused of lying to the people. It employs both legal argumentation (comparing situations to court proceedings, describing offenses) as well as personalized examples and quotes (Kaja Kallas, Mart Võrklaev, Jürgen Ligi) to create emotional impact. The speech is formal, yet it contains sharp personal judgments (e.g., "was he stupid then or is he stupid now").
2024-10-07
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is suspicious and confrontational, especially regarding the topic of Rail Baltic, hinting at hidden agendas and leaked documents. Direct questions are posed to the minister to cast doubt on his knowledge and the data he has presented. The argumentation is a blend of personal experience (traffic posts) and a conspiratorial tone (the removal of mineral resources).
2024-09-18
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is combative, insistent, and dramatic, utilizing strong accusations ("corrupt government," "business sharks") and emotional analogies (colonization, shards of glass). The style merges detailed financial analysis and legal references (the Constitution) with recurring and cautionary statements. Humor (laughter in the hall) is also employed when highlighting procedural issues.
2024-09-17
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is sharp and confrontational, particularly when directed at the Riigikogu board, where a quoted personal attack ("chatbot") is employed. When addressing the Chancellor of Justice, the tone is formal and relies on logical, law-based argumentation, posing the question directly and specifically.
2024-09-16
The 15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is predominantly combative and demanding, especially when calling the minister's answers into question and labeling them "utterly absurd nonsense." The arguments are strongly logical and fact-based, relying on specific procedural details, constitutional articles, and technical data. Sharp metaphors are employed, such as "a concrete colossus the height of a TV tower," to emphasize the sheer scale of the projects.
2024-09-11
Fifteenth Riigikogu, fourth session, plenary session
The style is formal and serious, addressing the minister respectfully but simultaneously posing a sharp and demanding question. Both a logical appeal (a demand for the source) and emotional emphasis are used, describing the minister's statement as "a very frightening sentence."
2024-09-11
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, press briefing.
The rhetorical style is formal, legally precise, and challenging, focusing on logical argumentation and concrete facts (dates, specific statutes). The speaker poses repetitive and meticulously defined questions, demanding an explanation from the minister regarding the disregard of the current legal act. The style is rather confrontational, as the propriety of the actions of both the minister and the session chairman is being called into question.
2024-09-09
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is direct, factual, and at times impatient, especially in the introduction of the topic ("I won't waste any more of my time on this"). The speaker uses personal experience to establish credibility and appeals to logic, emphasizing the direct and negative impact of insufficient financial resources on food security, thereby creating a tone of urgency.
2024-07-29
The 15th Riigikogu, extraordinary session of the Riigikogu.
The rhetorical style is confrontational, demanding, and legally precise, centering on the direct posing of questions to the presiding officer. The speaker employs formal language and legal terminology, requiring specific answers concerning how illegal activity is to be controlled. The tone is accusatory, characterizing the presiding officer's actions as "illegal."
2024-07-29
15th Riigikogu, extraordinary session of the Riigikogu
The speaking style is extremely combative, accusatory, and emotional, using strong expressions like "pure manipulation and deceit" and accusing opponents of "selling their soul to the devil." Alongside logical arguments (the tax cost of museums, constitutional references), many emotional and conspiratorial appeals are employed, describing ELAK's activities as siphoning off state assets through a "back door." It addresses directly the "Good people of Estonia" and President Alar Karis.
2024-07-22
15th Riigikogu, Riigikogu's extraordinary session.
The rhetorical style is direct, formal, and demanding, centered on eliciting a concrete response from the prime ministerial candidate. The speaker employs logical arguments and procedural corrections to highlight the inaccuracies and evasiveness present in the candidate's reply. The focus is clearly placed on facts and legislative grounding.
2024-07-15
15th Riigikogu, Extraordinary session of the Riigikogu
The rhetorical style is highly combative, emotional, and alarmist, employing powerful historical analogies (Stalinist tactics). The speech includes dramatic warnings about "evil" rearing its head and references recent political shootings (Trump, the Slovak Prime Minister) to underscore the gravity of the situation and the peril posed by the government's actions.
2024-06-19
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, extra plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is highly combative and cautionary, employing extreme historical parallels by comparing the government's tax policy to Stalinist extermination policy. The speech is structured around logical constitutional argumentation, but concludes with a strong emotional and political accusation. The tone is formal, yet passionate and accusatory.
2024-06-12
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is dramatic, cautionary, and at times confrontational, employing a lengthy narrative (Peeter Poligon and the sniper) to illustrate the inherent danger. He makes emotional appeals, linking nuclear energy directly to catastrophe and voicing concern over the potential sacrifice of Estonian land. The speaker poses direct and challenging questions to the presenter and concludes their remarks with a strong warning: that "sniper" and "Chernobyl" carry the exact same meaning.
2024-06-11
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is highly confrontational, straightforward, and informative. It uses a vivid, personal, and somewhat vulgar analogy (the example of the apartment and the chair) to illustrate the principle of sovereignty. The tone is emotional and extremely dismissive, offering a direct and rude rejection.
2024-06-05
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The style is extremely militant, emotional, and mobilizing, employing powerful metaphors such as "neo-communism," "kulak government," and "selling one's soul to the globalists." The speaker utilizes a personal anecdote (monitoring the news in the morning) and direct rhetorical questions addressed to the public to incite resistance and mass action.
2024-06-05
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, information briefing
The rhetorical style is formal and direct, starting with a polite address ("dear colleague"). The tone is probing and procedural, raising clear factual questions regarding the Prime Minister's absence.
2024-06-03
Fifteenth Riigikogu, third session, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and at times provocative, employing strong emotional expressions (e.g., quoting a citizen's question: "who is that idiot"). Sarcasm and rhetorical questions are used to express skepticism (for instance, regarding the flowers given to the minister). The speaker uses direct and dramatic comparisons, such as equating the Reform Party with Putin.
2024-05-29
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The speaker's rhetorical style is formal and argumentative, utilizing both legal logic and emotional examples (Marti Kuusik, Kajar Lember) to illustrate the moral and material damage caused by the media. The tone is at times critical and admonishing, particularly when addressing the Riigikogu committees and the media, emphasizing the necessity of sending a clear message to society. He/She also employs figures of speech, such as, "You can kill a fly with a newspaper, and a person too."
2024-05-14
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and question-oriented, addressing the Supreme Court candidate. The speaker uses logical argumentation, citing specific legislation and personal experience from filing a complaint, to emphasize concern about procedural correctness.
2024-05-09
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is combative, sharp, and accusatory, utilizing strong metaphors (Reform Party deputies throw themselves into the defense of e-voting like Aleksandr Matrosov). Legal arguments are interwoven with emotional appeals, accusing opponents of fearing the loss of power and spreading Kremlin talking points.
2024-05-08
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, accusatory, and insistent, particularly when addressing violations of procedural rules, demanding intervention from the leadership. Both emotional appeals (e.g., "It is shameful," demanding honesty from Jüri Ratas) and detailed legal references to laws and regulations are employed. One speech concludes with an extremely sharp and vulgar personal attack directed at members of the Riigikogu.
2024-05-07
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal, yet simultaneously critical and demanding, focusing on logical arguments grounded in laws and internal regulations. Slight irony ("sporting spirit") is directed toward the presiding officer regarding the excessively rapid pace of procedures. The speaker also employs a direct plea for the application of a "discretionary ruling" to secure the right to speak.
2024-05-02
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is confrontational, accusatory, and emotional, employing strong metaphors ("choking noose") and rhetorical questions ("Aren't you ashamed?"). Although legal arguments are presented, the tone is often moralizing and directly aggressive towards the ministers (Riina Sikkut) and the chairman of the session (Lauri Hussar), who are accused of using "steamroller tactics."
2024-04-30
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Third Session, Plenary Session.
The tone is predominantly confrontational and critical, calling into question the competence and integrity of the ministers. Direct and emotional appeals are employed, specifically asking the minister if he feels "even a little bit embarrassed" and demanding "an honest answer" from someone in a social role. The style remains formal, yet it incorporates pointed questions focusing on both procedural logic and national priorities.
2024-04-29
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The speaking style is extremely combative, sarcastic, and provocative, using the ironic title "genius" when referring to the Prime Minister. Strong emotional phrases are employed—such as ("pulled out of thin air," "a tough sell")—along with rhetorical questions to underscore the demagogic nature of the policy. The appeal is made to skepticism and the citation of authorities (Lippmaa), rather than relying on official data.
2024-04-17
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and legally precise, combining emotional indignation ("in true bewilderment") with specific legal references. Strong metaphors are employed, comparing the session to a Soviet-era collective farm party meeting, and the lack of trust in the government is underscored by referencing Kaja Kallas’s previous promises. Logistical requests are also made concerning the speaker's pace to facilitate the compilation of the official transcript.
2024-04-17
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, information briefing
The rhetoric is combative, accusatory, and demanding, especially concerning the conduct and transparency of ministers. Strong emotional and personal language is employed, for instance, accusing the Foreign Minister of pushing the Kremlin narrative and demanding that he be called to order. Appeals target both procedural rights (such as the information hour/question time) and core values (transparency, protection of victims).
2024-04-16
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is critical but justified, utilizing the support of other MPs (Arvo Aller) to affirm the speaker's stance and highlight the scope of the problem. The speaker combines a logical argument (if multiple deputies criticize, it is justified) with an emotional emphasis on the survival of rural regions. The speech concludes with a direct and pointed question posed to the minister regarding political support.
2024-04-10
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, respectfully addressing the presiding officer of the session. The speaker presents logical, hypothetical scenarios to emphasize the risk of procedural uncertainty. The style is analytical and cautious, focusing on legal clarity.
2024-04-08
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is formal, legalistic, and argumentative, focusing on the precise interpretation of legal provisions. The tone is serious and inquisitive, expressing the hope that legal violations will cease, and addressing the minister directly.
2024-04-04
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal and centers on posing questions, being inherently procedural and logical. The tone is courteous ("Esteemed Chair of the Session"), yet demanding when it comes to clarity and consistency.
2024-04-03
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is demanding and critical, focusing on logical and legal arguments, as well as procedural issues. Although the speaker strives to maintain a formal tone, he expresses intense frustration over the dishonesty of government members, noting that the only option is sometimes to "get a little annoyed" and "block the podium."
2024-04-02
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is formal, serious, and highly logical, focusing on legal argumentation and rules of procedure. The speaker uses direct questions directed at the presiding officer ("Can we break the law?") and appeals to the chair's legal background to garner support for their position. The tone is demanding, emphasizing the necessity of avoiding illegality.
2024-04-01
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotional, employing harsh language such as "lying" and "flippant remarks." The speaker emphasizes the government's hypocrisy (they promised an increase but then cut it) and adopts a cautionary tone, concluding with a threat of "retribution" coming from the public.
2024-03-19
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is critical, concerned, and occasionally emotional, employing strong imagery (such as "monster" and "a much worse thing") to describe the dangers associated with foodstuffs. In the second speech, the tone is sharp and procedural, focusing on the issue of political accountability during a crucial vote. The speaker utilizes both logical arguments (numbers, references to institutions) and moral pressure.
2024-03-18
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is highly combative, emotional, and alarming, using strong metaphors like "deep state" and "fist." The speaker relies on personal experiences and detailed narratives (the refueling story, the Laanet incident) with the aim of demonstrating systemic injustice. He uses rhetorical questions and emphasizes elements of conspiracy theory (the use of the press as a tool of the prosecution).
2024-03-13
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting.
The style is predominantly formal and analytical, centering on logical arguments and facts (such as constitutional explanations and reports from the Ukrainian front). A critical and exacting tone is employed when highlighting the technical (e.g., the division bell sound) and procedural deficiencies of the Riigikogu.
2024-03-12
15th Riigikogu, 3rd plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is confrontational and demanding, requiring concrete answers and avoiding "waffling." Sharp irony is employed ("I bow down for that") and direct negative comparisons (a reference to Kaja Kallas) are used to undermine the opponent's credibility. The speaker presents logical challenges to expose the baselessness of the opposing side's claims.
2024-03-11
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and confrontational, employing strong expressions such as "is acting arrogantly" and "you are told to get lost." The speaker uses analogies drawn from the private sector (employer and foreman) to criticize parliamentary work relations, emphasizing a logical appeal regarding accountability. The overall tone is frustrated and accusatory due to the Prime Minister’s evasion of answering.
2024-03-06
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is critical, confrontational, and sharp, especially when the responses fail to meet expectations. Direct accusations of avoiding answers are used, alongside emphasizing political similarity (Michal vs Kallas). The speaker also employs inappropriate and offensive digressions (a reference to vaccination) to discredit the opposing side.
2024-03-06
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, press briefing
The rhetorical style is confrontational, insistent, and critical, strongly accusing the session chairman of a serious error. The speaker employs logical argumentation, relying on the specific text of the law, but delivers it with an emotional and suspicious tone, calling the chairman's objectivity into question.
2024-03-05
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The style is critical and direct, starting with an accusation that the opposing side is using artificial intelligence and demanding a return to "real life." Strong, real-life examples (generator, tractor, welding) are used to support the logical argument, highlighting the impracticality of the policy. The tone is skeptical and demands concrete answers.
2024-03-04
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is extremely confrontational, personal, and accusatory, utilizing strong emotional appeals and labeling ("Sandbox-Barbie," "plagiarism"). The Prime Minister is accused of arrogance and waging a full-scale economic war against Estonia. The speaker uses repetitive questioning (are you capable of describing the life of a poor family?) to emphasize the opponent's incompetence.
2024-02-21
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is combative, accusatory, and blunt, especially aimed at the coalition and ERR (Estonian Public Broadcasting). To clarify the nature of political propaganda, strong historical comparisons (Joseph Goebbels) and personal examples (Anna Levandi, biolabs) are utilized to bolster the legal arguments. The speaker blends the formal introduction of the draft bill with sharp political attacks and personal anecdotes.
2024-02-21
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, information briefing
The rhetorical style is formal (addressing the presiding officer of the session) but simultaneously sharply accusatory toward the minister. Legal arguments are employed (citing the Advertising Act) to bolster the emotional and ethical accusation of lying. The tone is demanding and seeks a swift procedural resolution to the minister's alleged unethical conduct.
2024-02-14
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is highly confrontational and aggressive, featuring direct accusations of lying. Strong, emotional, and unconventional language is employed, such as the phrase "a bucket of slop over your own head," used specifically to discredit the opponent. Rather than relying on logical arguments, the speaker focuses on the opponent's personal incompetence.
2024-02-14
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, information briefing
The rhetorical style is confrontational, demanding, and repetitive, particularly concerning the minister's response, who is accused of evading the question. Both logical arguments (expert assessments) and emotional emphasis are utilized, highlighting that electricity is a necessary commodity for life, not a luxury good.
2024-02-07
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is sharply critical, combative, and deeply concerned, employing powerful metaphors and historical analogies (e.g., "sacred cow in India," NKVD). It relies on an extensive factual enumeration of court rulings to establish a logical foundation for an emotional and value-driven appeal in defense of the rule of law. It poses questions to the audience to underscore the universality of its viewpoints, and responds to criticism directly, referencing the opponents' use of labeling.
2024-02-05
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is sharp, confrontational, and accusatory, employing direct questions to demand accountability. The speaker relies on an emotional appeal, referencing widespread public dissatisfaction (strikes, signature collection) and quoting a well-known political clip to underscore the government's dishonesty.
2024-01-25
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The style is combative, emotional, and accusatory, particularly concerning the committee's work and the opposition. The speaker employs strong moral appeals, stressing the opponents' lack of "conscience" and comparing procedural blocking to the "Stalin era." He mixes technical details with populist arguments, highlighting the public's concerns and personal observations, and frequently poses rhetorical questions.
2024-01-24
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The style is direct, at times admonishing and critical, particularly when addressing the session chairman and the minister. Both logical arguments (references to laws and regulations) and a personal example (a solidarity strike) are used to highlight the hypocrisy. The overall tone is businesslike, but disappointment is also expressed at the end ("What a shame").
2024-01-24
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, information briefing
The rhetorical style is initially ironic and sarcastic, employing exaggerated praise ("War Princess," "I would give you an award") before launching a sharp attack. The tone is generally aggressive and accusatory, emphasizing the abnormality of the situation ("phenomenon"). In subsequent speeches, the style shifts to become directly confrontational, accusing the prime minister of lying and procedurally demanding answers.
2024-01-23
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is insistent, confrontational, and alarmist, employing strong moral accusations (e.g., illegal human research, crime, accessories to the crime). A mix of technical data and emotional examples of victims is presented (e.g., the man from Paide, Õnne-Ann Roosvee). The speaker positions himself as a "messenger" who reveals hidden information, urging colleagues to restore critical thinking.
2024-01-22
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is extremely combative, emotional, and forceful, employing strong historical parallels (Stalinist, forced collectivization, deportations) to emphasize fear and danger. The speaker uses direct accusations against the government ("anti-people policy," "shameful") and calls upon the people to unite to "overthrow the Stalinist regime." The appeals are directed both at logic (the constitution) and emotions (historical trauma).
2024-01-17
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The style is confrontational and critical, featuring direct attacks against the coalition's policies and representatives. It employs both logical arguments (references to the constitution and economic theory) and irony and personal asides (e.g., criticizing colleagues for leaving and drinking water). The speaker attempts to maintain a substantive debate while simultaneously criticizing the procedural haste.
2024-01-16
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is formal, respectful, and inquisitive, focusing on logical arguments and procedural shortcomings. The speaker utilizes a citation from a legal authority to underscore the necessity of respecting court rulings before leveling criticism against the actions of the Prosecutor's Office. The tone is serious and demands accountability, repeatedly posing questions regarding the implementation of existing mechanisms.
2024-01-15
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and dramatic, directly accusing government members of lying and manipulating facts. Strong emotional appeals ("we are actually defenseless") and hypotheses (e.g., the hidden goals of Rail Baltic) are utilized, alongside historical parallels (US Prohibition, World War II weapons). The introduction to one interpellation employs ironic and sarcastic praise directed at Kaja Kallas.
2024-01-11
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, focusing on legal and procedural logic. Sharp rhetorical questions are employed to challenge the legitimacy of the actions taken by the coalition and the ministry, such as inquiries regarding constitutional amendments. The tone is demanding and stresses the necessity of consensus and tolerance when addressing the real-life issues faced by people.
2024-01-10
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is interrogative and challenging, frequently employing rhetorical questions to underscore the ambiguity surrounding national sovereignty and EU obligations. The tone remains formal (addressing the respected Chair of the session and the Rapporteur), yet the substance is combative, focusing on exposing logical inconsistencies and procedural flaws.
2024-01-10
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, information briefing
The rhetorical style is sharply aggressive and confrontational, employing personal criticism aimed at the prime minister (a reference to the "dress with globalist general's epaulets") and emotional, vivid imagery (cow dung heaps in front of government buildings). Logical contrast is utilized (the handling of strikes in Estonia versus Germany), and questions are posed that call into question the public's right to protest.
2024-01-08
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is confrontational and dramatic, highlighting the gravity of the events and the media's silence. Strong and emotional comparisons are employed, especially when criticizing the mainstream media, who are likened to a Soviet partisan. The discourse is framed as a question, but its substance is rather accusatory and rhetorical.