By Plenary Sessions: Helle-Moonika Helme

The rhetorical style is highly combative and alarmist, particularly on security issues, where direct and imminent danger is emphasized ("it's no longer a question of if, but when [war comes]"). Strong emotional appeals and personal attacks are used against the Prime Minister (accusing her of abandoning the country and seeking out "foreign uncles"). The speaker employs irony and historical hyperbole (beard taxes, bald head taxes) to criticize the government's financial policy.

The rhetorical style is passionate, sharply accusatory, and highly emotional, repeatedly invoking the theme of the Estonian people being deceived and the government lying. Strong metaphors are employed ("in firm, strangling hands") along with a direct appeal to voters to withhold support from the coalition. The tone is overwhelmingly confrontational and features personal attacks (e.g., targeting Kaja Kallas and Jürgen Ligi).

The rhetorical style is confrontational, critical, and emotional, employing sharp language and figurative, sometimes aggressive expressions (e.g., "to cripple," "I will kill one tiny potential human being"). The speaker frequently uses rhetorical questions and demands direct "yes or no" answers, framing political issues within a moral context. Irony is also utilized, describing the minister's responses as imagery containing an "element of violence."

The rhetorical style is highly combative, emotional, and often hyperbolic, employing strongly negative expressions such as "insane ideology," "brutally polluting nature," and "meat grinders." Appeals are made for the protection of nature and local communities, citing examples of injured birds. In the later phase of the session, the style becomes repetitive and procedural, focusing on demanding votes.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and forceful, highlighting the perilous state of the nation in terms of demographics and the economy. Both emotional appeals (the public's despondency and anguish) and statistical data are used to substantiate claims of government incompetence. The tone is confrontational, demanding the prime minister's resignation and accusing him of a gross violation of the constitutional order.

The tone is serious, concerned, and accusatory, stressing that this is not a joke, but a matter of grave concern. Logical argumentation is employed (specifically highlighting factual errors) with the goal of generating fear and uncertainty among the public regarding security agencies. The speaker uses strong phrases such as "to miss the mark," "to mess up incompetently," and "to fabricate."

The style is direct and focuses on procedural requirements, while remaining courteous toward the presiding officer ("gracious Chair"). Initially, slight frustration is expressed due to technical issues (the console is described as "hard and unresponsive"). The speaker also notes the strong buzzing noise prevailing in the hall, which indicates a desire to restore order.

The rhetorical style is extremely aggressive, accusatory, and emotional, employing strong language such as "treason" and "crime." The speaker utilizes both factual data (cost figures, economic growth) and populist appeals, defending the public from government accusations and "brainwashing." The tone is ironic and critical, calling into question the competence and morality of the government.

The speaker's rhetorical style is predominantly combative and passionate, especially when criticizing the government and opposing forces, employing terms like "incompetence," "unconscionably," and "underhand tactics." They utilize both emotional appeals (the conditions of musicians, the future of high culture) and logical arguments (location, cost, legislative obligations). The tone is urgent and demands immediate action.

The rhetorical style is extremely aggressive, accusatory, and emotional, utilizing sharp personal attacks and moralizing language (e.g., "shame," "minus 25," "a wolf in sheep's clothing"). The discourse is rather value-based and nationalistic, emphasizing the defense of the nation-state and accusing the opponent of violating the constitution. Irony and hyperbole are employed (e.g., "even any drunkard is fit to be put in front of the class") to underscore the gravity of the situation.