By Plenary Sessions: Anti Poolamets

The tone is critical and demanding toward the minister, describing the situation as a "difficult and bumpy start" and expressing indignation over the lack of a role model. The speaker presents their criticism as a logical and procedural requirement, while simultaneously offering a concrete solution (conducting an analysis). The second address is neutral and clarifying, focusing on establishing the facts.

The style is critical, direct, and demanding, focusing on logical appeal and the presentation of evidence (contradictory forecasts). The speaker uses rhetorical questions to draw attention to the failure of the forecasts and to demand clarification regarding the prime minister's potentially hyperbolic language.

The rhetorical style is urgent, critical, and combative, emphasizing the collapse of industries and the necessity of a survival project. Strong and emotional expressions are used, such as "green frenzy" and "ideological collapse." The appeals are a mixture of logical arguments (figures concerning Finnish nuclear power plants) and political warnings (Sweden's social collapse, Trump's influence).

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and polemical, employing strong emotional appeals, such as the example of Estonia ending up in "very bad company" with Putin's Russia. It emphasizes the logical necessity of criticism and transparency, contrasting this approach with the blind faith associated with the "black box." The address includes both personal experiences (as an election observer) and concrete examples (the corruption in Rakvere).

The rhetorical style is demanding, critical, and direct, raising questions that point toward ethical issues and illegality. The speaker emphasizes the need for clear and detailed answers, demanding explanations rather than brief affirmative or negative responses. A logical appeal is utilized, referencing the content of news reports and the terms of the procurement.

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, passionate, and accusatory, especially when criticizing the Reform Party's national defense positions. Strong emotional appeals and figurative language are employed, for instance, comparing the Reform Party to Herman Simm and labeling the constitution "a hollowed-out piece of paper." On procedural issues, the tone is sharp and demanding, insisting that opponents show repentance and sprinkle ashes on their heads.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, dramatic, and urgent, utilizing strong metaphors ("optical illusion," "mirages") and emotional judgments ("catastrophe," "deplorable situation," "intolerable situation"). The argumentation relies heavily on facts, statistics, and direct quotes from opponents (Kaja Kallas) to demonstrate the government's incompetence. The speaker demands radical measures and accountability.

The rhetorical style is highly combative and accusatory, featuring direct personal attacks that include accusations of lying ("brazen lying") and disgracing the country. Strong emotional appeals are employed to defend vulnerable groups, linking these appeals to specific political issues (inflation, the tax burden). The tone is urgent and demanding.

The speaking style is extremely combative, accusatory, and emotional, employing sharp personal attacks (e.g., the prime minister's mental confusion) and strong ideological parallels. The speaker uses historical comparisons (Lenin’s bas-relief, Soviet internationalism) and paints a picture of the opponents’ actions as the construction of a revolutionary utopia directed against the nation-state. The speaker also requests three minutes of extra time, which indicates a desire to present their views comprehensively.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotional, employing sharp accusations and historical parallels (the specter of communism, Soviet servitude). The speaker utilizes dramatic imagery (powdered sugar, the Annelinn drinking binge/brawl) and personal attacks to underscore the gravity and urgency of the situation, appealing directly to the national defense instinct and taxpayer funds.