By Plenary Sessions: Helle-Moonika Helme

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, accusatory, and pressing, employing emotional and moral appeals regarding issues like corruption, fraud, and potential imprisonment. The speaker employs sharp personal attacks and sarcasm, accusing opponents of "gaslighting" and "desperate lying." The tone is formal, but the content is aggressively confrontational, emphasizing that the Parliament (Riigikogu) is not a kindergarten.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and confrontational, particularly when criticizing the government's actions and accusing them of hypocrisy ("their deeds contradict their words"). Numerous rhetorical questions are employed to cast doubt on the opponents' motives, such as the Reform Party's alleged desire to take permanent control of science funding. While appeals are made to the responsibility and logic of politicians, emotional intensity is also employed when addressing the topic of attacking scientists.

The rhetorical style is highly aggressive, accusatory, and urgent, employing sharp phrases such as "sweeping things under the rug," "creative accounting," and "fraudulent schemes." The speaker relies heavily on emotional appeals, highlighting the loss of public confidence and the government's unethical behavior. Logical arguments are deployed to dismantle the government's assertions (for instance, the alleged low cost of wind energy), effectively accusing the administration of spinning a "fairy tale."

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotional, employing strong labels against opponents, such as "globalists," "woke activists," "a pack of lunatics," and "enemies of the Estonian state." The tone is alarmist, framing political disagreements as existential threats to the independence and rule of law of the Republic of Estonia.

The rhetorical style is highly combative and confrontational, employing direct attacks (e.g., "bad prime minister") and accusations that the government's actions have become "blatantly corrupt." Numerous rhetorical questions are used to emphasize the government's failure, and the opponent's arguments are referred to as "childish."

The style is sharp, critical, and incisive, utilizing strong emotional and judgmental expressions (e.g., "ideological suicide," "irrational subsidizing"). Rhetorical questions and contrasts (USA vs. EU/Estonia) are employed to highlight the available choices. The speaker accuses the opposing side of cheap demagoguery and failure, emphasizing a logical appeal through the lens of economic damage.

The style of the address is direct and confrontational, kicking off with a call to talk about "real life and the real world." Ideologically charged and resolute language is employed, posing questions that require the ministry to clearly align itself with new international value standards.