By Plenary Sessions: Helle-Moonika Helme

The style is highly combative, accusatory, and ironic, employing ridicule aimed at government rhetoric (e.g., "slavery is freedom" and the supposed benefits of the VAT increase for low-income earners). The speaker uses strong emotional appeals and levels direct accusations regarding the government's incompetence and dishonesty, posing numerous rhetorical questions ("Do you even understand what you are saying?").

The speaker adopts a highly combative, emotional, and critical style, employing strong, damning phrases like "bungling actions," "foolish and incompetent state governance," and "Putin’s delight." He draws on personal experiences from Southern Estonia and uses rhetorical questions to underscore the public's disappointment and despair, while dismissing the opposing side's arguments as mere "blithe prattle."

The tone is predominantly combative, confrontational, and sarcastic, particularly when criticizing opponents (liberals, the coalition). The speaker employs strong emotional appeals and colorful metaphors, labeling draft legislation a "Trojan horse" and the CO2 market "selling air." They frequently use personal examples (as a private forest owner) and rhetorical questions, accusing opponents of fearmongering and manipulation.

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, accusatory, and emotionally charged, employing powerful appeals to the sense of justice. The speaker details the abuse and crimes (rape, beating residents to death) that took place in care homes to underscore the gravity of the situation. The tone is confrontational, accusing the minister of avoiding responsibility and obfuscating the issue.

The style is critical and confrontational, presenting direct questions to the Minister regarding responsibility for hypothetical future events. The speaker employs logical, consequence-based argumentation, linking the Minister's choice to a potential threat to freedom of speech. The tone is serious and cautionary.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and accusatory, often employing emotional appeals to highlight the hardships faced by the populace (e.g., emigration, expensive electricity). Sharp accusations are leveled at the government (arrogance, security scaremongering), and complex issues are simplified by contrasting the current situation with the notion that "it was easy and cheap before."

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and urgent, employing strong emotional and judgmental expressions ("bungling governance," "craving for dictatorship," "stupidities"). Rhetorical questions are often used to call into question the authority of the ministers and the session chair, as well as the constitutionality of their actions.

The rhetorical style is skeptical and at times combative, employing irony and figurative expressions (e.g., "the lion and the lamb together on a green meadow") when describing the relationship between the Competition Authority and businesses. Sharp questions are posed, suggesting potential dishonesty or political bias on the part of the government and the authorities. The tone is critical and logical, focusing on the exposure of political motives.