By Plenary Sessions: Kalle Grünthal

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.