By Plenary Sessions: Martin Helme

The rhetorical style is highly aggressive, accusatory, and confrontational, focusing heavily on the opposition party's lies and broken promises, particularly those affecting pensioners. The speaker employs repeated emotional appeals and stresses the opponents' incompetence, labeling draft legislation as "idiotic" and projects as "insanely expensive." The speaker demands a "simple answer" from the opposition and directly connects domestic political failures to their party colleagues who are running in the European elections.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotional, utilizing sharp personal attacks and comparisons (e.g., "Putinists"). Irony and sarcasm are employed ("Jürgen, you're in great shape today; there's no need to try using an axe") and the narrative of voter deception is heavily emphasized. The speech contains both logical arguments supported by statistics and strong emotional appeals aimed at pensioners.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotional, employing strong moral judgments (e.g., "Satanic death culture," "blatant lying to one's face"). Opponents are labeled (e.g., "screaming radical feminists") and their positions are dismissed as empty slogans. Dramatic comparisons are utilized (equating abortion with the murder of small children) and the conservative value-basis of their own positions is emphasized.

The rhetorical style is sharp, troubled, and confrontational, utilizing heavily charged and emotional expressions (e.g., "schools of horse thieves," "a trap or danger"). The speaker presents their position as a value-based warning against the endangerment of the nation-state, concluding with a direct and challenging question about defining the critical limit.

The rhetorical style is confrontational, critical, and tests the limits of logic, accusing the opposing side of illogical and contradictory behavior. Direct questions and sharp criticism are employed to highlight the detrimental nature of the opposing side's policy regarding Estonian security. The tone is primarily logical, yet charged with a strong emotional accusation.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, sharp, and penetrating, stressing the erosion of the foundation of democracy and the crisis of legitimacy. The speaker employs numerous rhetorical questions ("Are elections that cannot be controlled or observed truly elections?") and powerful metaphors (e.g., Ouroboros, the spreading of poison) to underscore the system's inherent dishonesty. While procedural arguments are offered, they are delivered in emotionally charged language, accusing the opposition of deliberate deception and outright lying.

The rhetorical style is extremely aggressive, sarcastic, and ironic, referring to the session as "a talented stand-up show." Strong personal attacks are employed, accusing the prime minister of Russification and failure, and referencing his father's propaganda techniques. The arguments are a mixture of emotional accusations (Russification) and selectively presented data (SITKE, IMF).

The rhetorical style is highly aggressive, accusatory, and critical, employing strong negative terminology ("failure," "as a farce," "pseudo-optimistic babble"). Both logical arguments (a listing of facts and figures) and emotional appeals are utilized, accusing the minister of negligence, conducting a witch hunt, and engaging in activities contrary to the preamble of the constitution. The address is formal yet aggressive, with the goal of discrediting the minister's competence.