By Plenary Sessions: Siim Pohlak

The rhetorical style is highly confrontational, accusatory, and insistent, employing strong emotional appeals and labeling (e.g., "demagoguery," "special representative of large corporations"). The speaker issues direct challenges to opponents, demanding justifications and avoiding any tone of compromise. Extreme rhetoric is also used, referring to opponents as "henchmen of the great eastern neighbor" for undermining food security.

The rhetorical style is questioning, skeptical, and combative, employing strong comparisons (Estonia vs. Russia) to intensify the criticism. The speaker uses rhetorical questions ("Why is this being hushed up?") to draw attention to the government's alleged inaction and the media's silence.

The rhetorical style is confrontational and critical, accusing the Prime Minister of having a victim mentality and the government of acting against common sense. Both emotional language and economic arguments are employed to demonstrate the negative impact of tax increases on middle-income earners.

The style is formal and polite, addressing the chairperson with respect ("respected chairperson"). However, due to repeated demands, the discourse is highly persistent and procedural, focusing solely on conducting votes, without any emotional or narrative elements.

The rhetorical style is sharply aggressive and cautionary, repeatedly employing emotionally charged phrases such as "craving for dictatorship" and "extremely dangerous argumentation." The argument primarily relies on the slippery slope logic, extrapolating the principle of taxation to dangerous ideological consequences. The tone is formal, but the content is highly confrontational.