By Plenary Sessions: Martin Helme

The rhetorical style is analytical and interrogative, centering on logical risk assessment. The speaker presents their viewpoint (the draft bill is good) and subsequently directs attention to a critical question, all while maintaining a formal and professional tone.

The style is formal and addressed to colleagues, yet simultaneously direct and persuasive. The rhetoric is balanced, offering concrete data and a clear logical outcome (cheaper gasoline). The speech concludes with a direct and urgent plea for support.

The style is extremely combative, sharp, and confrontational, accusing ministers of outright lying and insulting the intelligentsia. It frequently employs strong ideological terms and comparisons ("communism," "command economy," "the globalists' idiotic plan," "serfs") and appeals to emotions by describing the hardships faced by ordinary people and utilizing personal examples (experience with the apartment association, Nõmme logistics).

The rhetorical style is combative and critical, employing sarcasm (e.g., calling the prime minister a "financial genius") and making personal digs at opponents. It utilizes logical arguments (traceability, economic revitalization) but presents them with high emotional intensity. It draws historical comparisons to the Soviet era to emphasize the dangers of losing control, and often concludes with a call to support the opposition's draft legislation.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, questioning, and deeply concerned, particularly regarding the government's inaction and contradictory messaging. Strong emotional appeals are employed (shaking salt into historical wounds) alongside logical contrasts (a strengthening Russia versus a weakening West) to bring strategic threats to the forefront. The speaker poses numerous rhetorical questions to underscore the government's lack of response and internal inconsistency.

The speaker's rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotionally charged, employing strong phrases such as "primal fear," "absurd slogan," "Putinism in Estonia," and "existentially dangerous." They repeatedly accuse their opponents of lying and demagoguery, and utilize irony and dramatic comparisons (for example, equating Russification with the era of Karl Vaino). The overall tone is extremely critical and urgent.

The tone is predominantly combative, ironic, and critical, utilizing emotional expressions such as "exquisite humor" and "embarrassing." It employs strong polarization, referring to the Reform Party faction as a "bunch of madmen and lunatics." It uses rhetorical questions and references to previous political statements (Janek Mäggi) to underscore its arguments.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, employing strong emotional and derogatory expressions (e.g., "complete nonsense," "Black Continent casino"). He presents his views directly and skeptically, combining political criticism with procedural complaints. He uses sarcasm when describing Estonia's role as an enthusiastic supporter of other countries' candidacies.