By Plenary Sessions: Helle-Moonika Helme

The rhetorical style is critical, skeptical, and demanding, utilizing irony (the Berlin opera versus Häädemeeste) to highlight the project's failures. Numerous rhetorical questions are employed to cast doubt on the project's economic and security rationale. The tone is formal, yet it includes an emotional appeal ("The Estonian people would like to know").

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotional, utilizing strong hyperbole and negative imagery (e.g., North Korean news broadcasts, absurd ideological drivel, bog dystopias). The speaker presents logical arguments (budget figures) mixed with emotional appeals, calling into question the government's moral authority and legitimacy. The tone is extremely critical and urgent.

The rhetorical style is direct, critical, and interrogative, often employing rhetorical questions to challenge the government's actions ("Why did you do that?"). Strong and slightly emotional expressions are used (e.g., "to hit with full force," "relegated to the role of the underdog") to emphasize injustice and the negative consequences of the government's policies.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and demanding, employing strong emotional language and irony to characterize the government's actions. Quotes from historical figures are utilized ("I am not coming down from here; burn me, house and all!") alongside rhetorical questions to highlight absurd situations and demand accountability. The tone is confrontational, and the objective is to compel the opponent to publicly address sensitive issues.

The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and emotionally charged, focusing on generating fear and stress within society. It employs personal attacks against ministers, often labeling them as foul-mouthed or incompetent, and accuses the opposing party of "gaslighting." The speaker leans heavily on emotional appeals and hypothetical negative scenarios (emigration, destruction of the gene pool).

The rhetorical style is sharply confrontational and accusatory, employing emotional imagery ("rats in the pantry") and hyperbole (mandatory service for women). The speaker quotes classical sources and demands strict factual accuracy regarding procedural issues, ready to produce official protocols (the transcript). The tone is generally admonishing and demanding.

The rhetorical style is concerned and straightforward, emphasizing the suffering and devastation experienced by the producers. A rhetorical question is employed ("Is there a plan... or will we again be told to fend for ourselves?") to sharply criticize the state's inaction. The tone is primarily logical and problem-focused, but also includes an emotional appeal for the protection of the suffering producers.

The style is predominantly formal and procedural, but it includes criticism and ironic remarks aimed at the government's activities, particularly concerning how the agenda is drawn up. Strong expressions are employed (e.g., "categorical imperative"), and public concerns are highlighted (e.g., school closures, imported prisoners). The criticism is frequently aimed at the lack of substantive responses during information sessions, urging ministers to provide meaningful answers rather than relying on boilerplate phrases.