By Plenary Sessions: Helle-Moonika Helme

The speaker’s rhetorical style is highly confrontational, accusatory, and emotionally charged, repeatedly making references to the "oiling of Putin’s war machine." Hypothetical questions are employed to underscore political injustice and the previous attempts to sweep the issue under the rug. The speech concludes with a direct accusation that the minister is ridiculing Estonia as a state governed by the rule of law, demonstrating the high intensity of the attack.

The rhetorical style is confrontational and critical, employing strong judgments (e.g., "unscientific green transition narrative," "under the shadow of dreadful wind turbines"). The appeals are a blend of economic logic (the absence of a market economy) and a value-based emphasis, pitting business sector revenue against family policy.

The rhetorical style is combative, ideological, and forceful, employing strong labeling ("globalists," "radical thugs") and accusing opponents of hypocrisy. Both logical arguments (the impact of taxes on the standard of living) and emotional appeals (the violation of women's safety) are utilized. The speaker addresses not only the colleagues seated in the chamber but also the online audience.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, employing strong accusations of hypocrisy and injustice ("Petty thieves hang from the gallows, while the big crooks continue to ride around in carriages.") The speaker uses emotional appeals to highlight the skewed nature of the state's priorities and the scale of corruption. The tone is urgent, particularly concerning security and the reallocation of resources.

The style is highly combative, accusatory, and insistent, posing direct questions to the Prime Minister ("What are you afraid of?"). The rhetoric relies both on logical arguments (constitutional order, approval ratings) and emotional accusations of corruption and unethical conduct. Sharply critical language is employed, labeling the government’s actions as unconstitutional and thoroughly steeped in corruption.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and accusatory, using strong language such as "immigration pump" and "Bolt's lobbying." The speaker relies primarily on value-based and procedural criticism (e.g., constitutional violations) and directly accuses the government of lobbying and political bullying. The tone is formal, yet urgent and concerned about the state of democracy.

The style is combative, ironic, and critical, using anecdotal comparisons (like the official and the cramped apartment) to ridicule the government's actions. The speaker employs both emotional appeals (concern for children and teachers) and logical arguments (the inefficiency of the management structure) to emphasize just how illogical the ministry's activities are. This approach heightens indignation and accuses the opposing side of using bureaucratic flowery language.

The rhetorical style is highly accusatory, emotional, and forceful, employing personal stories (miscarriage, an inconsolable woman) and moral condemnation. Dramatic language is used, accusing the opposing side of crimes against humanity and corruption. The speaker presents their views in the form of questions, seeking confirmation from their interlocutor ("Dear Varro!").

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and confrontational, expressing great astonishment and indignation over the opposing side's actions. Strong emotional language is employed (e.g., "childish and arrogant justification"), along with direct rhetorical questions ("Who are you protecting, or what are you hiding?"), in order to call the opposing party's motives into question.

The style is extremely combative, accusatory, and focused on scandal, utilizing strong emotional expressions ("in screaming contradiction," "a mire of lawlessness," "a hormone-fueled teenager"). Sarcasm is employed (the four seasons are to blame) alongside rhetorical questions ("who are you fooling?"). The logical appeal is based on an itemized list of taxes and the citation of constitutional authority.

The rhetorical style is explanatory, reminiscent, and insistent, emphasizing the objective of the discussion and the necessity of forming an investigative commission. The speaker employs logical argumentation to substantiate the need for an inquiry by referencing specific financial details (unpaid maintenance and property damage). The tone is formal and geared toward persuasion.