By Plenary Sessions: Mart Helme

The speaker's style is highly combative, accusatory, and confrontational, utilizing strong emotional appeals and accusations of crude falsehoods (Läänemets). To discredit opponents, their previous insults and impolite expressions are extensively quoted, including phrases like ("pohhui, nahhui and a shriveled pellet"). The violation of procedural rules is also emphasized (Kivimägi), and EKRE's "rhetoric" is contrasted with the Reform Party's "colorful statements."

The speaker adopts a highly aggressive and accusatory style, employing strong emotional language such as "total incompetence" and "foaming rage." Rhetorical questions are used repeatedly to cast doubt on the opponents' morality and integrity ("Have you no shame? When will you step down?"). The tone is confrontational, demanding immediate accountability and citing the ministers' inappropriate remarks and their evasion of direct answers.

The speaking style is highly confrontational and aggressive, employing strong labels (e.g., "the neo-Stalinist party of sowing commissioners"). The tone is ironic and personal, particularly when responding to accusations of engaging in personal attacks, defining such behavior as a natural component of politics. Personal experience (a former ministerial position) is utilized to back up arguments and justify the aggressive debate style.

The speaker’s style is extremely aggressive, emotional, and forceful, utilizing strong accusations (e.g., "total garbage," "incompetent"). Appeals are made to personal life experience ("as a person with life experience") and the public's concerns, while simultaneously dismissing opponents' arguments as "naive hot air." Opponents are further accused of failing to provide substantive responses and playing the tired "pro-Kremlin" card.

The speaker’s rhetorical style is highly combative and confrontational, accusing the opponent of a malicious political attack and inappropriate behavior. Strong emotional language is employed (e.g., calling the budget "stupid" and "absurd") alongside simple logical analogies (the car example) to bolster the arguments. The speaker defends the relevance of their questions and demands gentlemanly conduct from the minister.

The tone is combative, accusatory, and urgent, highlighting the pattern and recurrence of the government's actions. Strong emotional appeals are utilized, referencing "distressing footage" and historical examples of police abuse of power (Lihula, Kaldalu, Ilves). The style is direct and employs sharp language, accusing opponents of "wallowing" and engaging in "political sabotage."

The rhetorical style is extremely confrontational and aggressive, employing strong ideological accusations such as "completely fascist" and references to concentration camps. The speaker frames questions more as accusations and challenges ("come to your senses there in the government!"), relying heavily on emotional and ideological appeal rather than data.

The speaker's style is insistent and at times alarming, warning of a looming national catastrophe ("the rubber is about to burst"). Although scientific analysis, statistics, and long-term data are demanded, the appeals themselves are strongly emotional, emphasizing the threat of the nation-state disappearing and the "capitulation" of opponents. Direct address ("friends") and rhetorical contrast (nation-state vs. immigration) are employed.