By Plenary Sessions: Helle-Moonika Helme

The rhetorical style is passionate, confrontational, and critical, employing strong emotional appeals (referencing the dignity of women and the decline of the ministerial institution). Sharp accusations are leveled (lies, coupled with arrogant and haughty self-justification) and absurd examples (cat litter in the toilet) are used to illustrate ideological threats. The overall tone is one of dissatisfaction and accusation, particularly concerning the quality of the ministers' responses.

The tone is confrontational and sharply critical, employing emotional and accusatory language, such as accusing banks of "skimming the cream off the top" and dismissing regulations as "ideological mumbo-jumbo." The speaker picks up on the personal theme ("kitchen") introduced by the minister and calls the minister's competence into question. The argument is grounded in defending the principles of the free market and drawing comparisons with regional competitors.

The rhetorical style is predominantly confrontational, emotional, and often sarcastic, employing strong expressions (e.g., "don't lie," "smeared with filth"). The speaker focuses on exposing the government's alleged incompetence and secrecy, favoring personal and procedural attacks in addition to logical arguments. He repeatedly demands specific answers, accusing the ministers of speaking in circles and concealing the truth.

The style of the speech is highly confrontational, accusatory, and emotional, employing sharp phrases such as "you're talking nonsense" and "you are lying." In addition to the political criticism, significant attention is paid to the decorum and procedures of the debate, demanding that the minister refrain from using expressions like "harping" or "nagging," given that the minister is the one accountable before the Riigikogu (Parliament). Both logical arguments are used (by citing agreements) and emotional appeals (by referencing cultural figures and mothers without health insurance).

The rhetorical style is forceful and highly emotional, employing powerful appeals via specific incidents that have shocked the public to underscore the danger posed by the proposed bill. The tone is sharply critical, sometimes accusatory, toward the officials, asking, "What on earth are these officials thinking?" Both logical argumentation (citing sections of the law) and emotional argumentation (focusing on the child's unfortunate situation) are utilized.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and at times emotional, using strong expressions such as "pure monopolism," "utopian project," and "money laundering." Appeals are made both to logic (economic and strategic importance) and to emotions (traffic fatalities and poor road maintenance). The overall tone is urgent and demanding, emphasizing that the state must intervene where it is necessary to stand up for the people.