By Plenary Sessions: Helle-Moonika Helme

The rhetoric is highly combative, emotional, and urgent, employing strong and negative metaphors (e.g., "defiling the constitution," "dancing with a gas scarf"). The appeal is directed primarily at national values and the future of children, stressing the security threat. The speaker aggressively demands answers and transparency from the opposing side, particularly concerning commission votes.

The rhetorical style is extremely sharp, accusatory, and confrontational, employing powerful historical parallels (the Brezhnev era, the Phosphate War) to criticize the government. Emotional language is utilized ("fiddling the books," "languishing in poverty"), along with direct personal attacks against the prime minister (referencing his "delusions"). The preference is for narratives (the Ukrainian businessman, the plastic bag scandal) and accusations rather than the presentation of detailed evidence.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and demanding, especially when describing opponents' policies, employing strong negative epithets (e.g., "infantile," "utterly stupid," "ridiculous"). The speaker insists on sticking to the topic ("Let's talk about money, let's not spin a yarn") and uses emotional appeals (families, mothers, security) to underscore their positions. They also make procedural demands, such as putting amendments up for a vote.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and confrontational, employing heavily loaded terms such as "climate lie" and "ideological infantilism." The appeals are a blend of logical criticism (Tallinn-centricity) and value-based condemnation (socialist terminology), with questions posed directly to the presenter. The tone is anxious and accusatory, emphasizing the intimidation of people.

The rhetorical style is passionate, confrontational, and forceful, employing strong emotional appeals (references to unborn children, Father’s Day, a poem) while accusing opponents of lying. The speaker balances legal and financial argumentation with sharp social criticism aimed at government policy. He/She poses direct questions to colleagues and also addresses the viewers watching the screen.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and accusatory, employing strong emotional appeals that highlight people's suffering and the government's perceived malice. Irony is utilized ("Thank you, Party and Government!") alongside direct accusations of hypocrisy and the threat of corruption (Rail Baltic). The tone is insistent, urging the coalition to find the courage and support the draft law in order to demonstrate genuine concern.

The rhetorical style is confrontational, provocative, and sarcastic, utilizing direct questions aimed at the opponent and personal attacks. The tone is particularly sharp when accusing a government member of lying about tax increases, referencing the "title of liar" and a confession made during a live broadcast on ERR. The appeals combine logical political criticism (the security aspect) with strong emotional and ethical attacks.

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, accusatory, and insistent, utilizing strong emotional appeals and direct accusations against the opposing side ("Why are you lying to the people of Estonia?"). Sharp rhetorical questions and imperatives are employed to emphasize the integrity of one's own position and the danger inherent in the opposing side's solution. A regional reference (the Võro language) is used at the beginning of the speech to create goodwill.

The speaker’s style is highly confrontational and critical, employing strongly charged language such as “madness,” “ideological zealots,” “absurd,” and “hypocritical.” They utilize both logical arguments (loss of competitiveness, the low cost of fossil fuels) and personal attacks (referencing the prime minister’s source of knowledge and the spouse’s business dealings with Russia).

The rhetorical style is highly combative and accusatory, employing strong emotional phrases such as "family demolition projects" and "climate hysteria." The speaker frames their position as a pointed rhetorical question directed at the minister, focusing on moral and value-based arguments concerning the policy's consequences.