By Plenary Sessions: Martin Helme

The style of rhetoric is extremely combative, critical, and accusatory, employing strong phrases such as "the Reform Party regime" and "defacing the constitution." The appeals are primarily logical (demanding consistency and constitutional integrity), but are delivered in an emotionally charged tone, accusing the coalition of hypocrisy and "crude behavior."

The rhetorical style is highly aggressive, accusatory, and forceful, employing strong emotional language (e.g., "you are defiling the Estonian constitution," "with haughtiness and arrogance"). Logical arguments (such as constitutional law principles and election statistics) are interspersed with personal and procedural accusations aimed at the governing coalition. Blunt phrases like "playing the fool" are used, and opponents are accused of furthering "Putin's agenda."

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and dramatic, employing powerful metaphors (such as calling the budget "filth" or "sludge") and political epithets ("corporatocracy's coup d'état," "simulation of democracy"). The speaker is direct, presenting logical arguments backed by data, yet heavily emphasizes the emotional and moral condemnation of the government’s actions. He actively engages in refuting false claims and "fake news."

The rhetorical style is highly confrontational, accusatory, and deeply concerned, employing strong emotional appeals regarding the threat of war and mass evacuation. The speaker accuses the government of "bungling" and "panic-mongering," and criticizes the Prime Minister for laughing about such a serious issue. Repeated questions are used (especially concerning evacuation) and rhetorical devices (such as the use of the "oxymoron") to underscore the contradictory nature of the government's claims.

The rhetorical style is intensely passionate and confrontational, employing powerful moral appeals and accusatory terms such as "murder" and "eugenic logic." The speaker uses hypothetical examples (parents impoverished due to the economic crisis) to push the opponent's arguments to the point of absurdity, and poses sharp rhetorical questions.