By Plenary Sessions: Mart Helme

The style is extremely confrontational, emotional, and accusatory, utilizing strong labels such as "mafioso state" and "idiots." The appeals are rather emotional and philosophical, referencing historical traditions and political-technological dosing. Irony and sarcasm are employed (e.g., the Supreme Court expressing itself "half-fartingly"), as well as direct personal attacks aimed at opponents.

The speaker employs a highly combative, critical, and urgent rhetorical style, utilizing powerful emotional appeals and vivid, figurative language. This includes references to the "deep state empire" and the Orwellian quote about some pigs being more equal than others. Concrete examples (the hairdresser's bill, the European Court of Auditors) are used to illustrate the system's inherent injustice, specifically highlighting the violation of the principles of the rule of law. The overall tone is accusatory and cautionary, pointing to the fear that politicians harbor regarding the justice system.

The speaker employs a critical and pressing style, especially when addressing topics of national defense and social issues, consistently emphasizing the gravity of the situation. They utilize direct questions and irony, for instance, referring to the ammunition procurement plan as a "laughing stock." The appeals are logical, focusing on immediate negative consequences, such as the lack of access to medications or shortfalls in defense capabilities.

The style is highly confrontational, accusatory, and aggressive, particularly toward Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, who is accused of stonewalling and dealing in "fairy tales." Emotional appeals are employed (fear of being left defenseless, being steered onto a disaster course) alongside rhetorical questions, repeatedly demanding concrete answers. The speaker also draws upon geopolitical sources (Zelensky, George Friedman) and specific figures (1.6 billion, 10,000 deserters).

The speech is extremely combative, accusatory, and highly personal, particularly targeting Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, whose conduct is described as shameless, unseemly, and contemptible. Strong emotional appeals are employed (such as the "broken state" of young people and the incitement of war) alongside rhetorical questions, demanding substantive answers. The style is often sarcastic and carries an intellectual undertone, referencing history (Francis Bacon, old taxes) and logical fallacies.

The speaking style is highly combative, ironic, and critical, employing strong emotional appeals, particularly concerning security and the weight of future challenges. Historical parallels and dramatic comparisons are utilized (for instance, media coverage regarding "heads rolling"), while accusing opponents of hypocrisy, foolishness, and arrogance. The argumentation relies more on value judgments and cautionary examples (Sweden, Africa) than on detailed data.

The tone is extremely confrontational, directly accusing the respondent (the minister) of lying, distorting facts, and spreading slander. The speaker justifies their intervention and interruptions as an unavoidable necessity for correcting misinformation in front of the public. Clear and unambiguous answers are repeatedly demanded, avoiding vague "thinking outside the box."

The speaking style is sharp, critical, and incisive, employing powerful metaphors (e.g., "the Titanic image," "the house of the simpletons/fools"). The speaker positions themselves as a "simple person" who speaks about real life, contrasting with the "wise" political elites. Both emotional appeals (the fate of rural schools) and historical and scientific references (literacy in 1898, the law of conservation of energy) are used to emphasize the inadequacy of the government’s actions.

The rhetorical style is highly aggressive, emotional, and accusatory, employing direct personal attacks against the Prime Minister, questioning his competence and moral character. Strong analogies are utilized (the Soviet party committee, the Augean stables) alongside hyperbole ("unbelievable cynicism"). Appeals are aimed more at emotions and morality (e.g., describing the life of a poor person) rather than detailed data analysis, and the catastrophic consequences of the government's actions are heavily emphasized.