By Months: Evelin Poolamets
Total Months: 9
Fully Profiled: 9
11.2025
17 Speeches
The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and forceful, addressing the minister directly and labeling him an adventurer. Strong emotional appeals and rhetorical questions are employed to highlight how the government's actions contradict the principles of a civilized society. The tone is formal, but the content is sharply personal and politically charged.
10.2025
10 Speeches
The rhetorical style is confrontational and provocative, posing direct procedural questions to the chair of the session. The speaker employs an extreme and provocative hypothetical example (taking off one's trousers) to maximize emotional impact and underscore the gravity of the minister's improper conduct.
09.2025
41 Speeches
The speaker's rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, employing strong and emotional language such as "green racket," "fake science," and "insane experiments." He balances logical arguments (financial data, statistics) with emotional appeals, emphasizing the burden placed on Estonian people and businesses. The speech is formal, yet it contains pointed accusations directed at the government.
06.2025
35 Speeches
The rhetorical style is sharply critical and forceful, utilizing strong emotional appeals (the destruction of dignity, the ruin of domestic peace) alongside detailed technical and legal arguments. The speaker accuses the government of "green madness" and evading responsibility, painting a picture of the rule of law eroding and a system that is "like the Wild West." He repeatedly draws comparisons to the Tallinn TV Tower to emphasize the massive scale of the wind turbines.
05.2025
46 Speeches
The rhetorical style is predominantly critical and combative, particularly on the topics of the green transition, taxes, and immigration, employing an urgent and anxious tone. The speaker combines emotional appeals (such as the concerns of rural residents and the value of home) with economic and logical arguments (costs, competitiveness). Strong metaphors and accusations are utilized (e.g., the government lies, hot air/nonsense, electricity production colony), and the speaker repeatedly asks for extra time for lengthy presentations.
04.2025
30 Speeches
The speaker’s style is predominantly combative, critical, and insistent, employing strong language ("embarrassing situation," "to demolish," "chaos"). They balance emotional appeals (protecting public health, women’s dignity) with detailed data and technical arguments, particularly regarding wind farms. Rhetorical questions and direct accusations of government foolishness or catering to private interests are frequently used.
03.2025
49 Speeches
The rhetorical style is insistent, combative, and moralizing, employing strong emotional appeals and accusations of unethical conduct (e.g., "rehepaplik suhtumine," "criminal"). The speaker frequently uses rhetorical questions and contrasts (e.g., the disappearance of taxpayer money versus a lack of accountability). The criticism is direct and intense, especially when aimed at the government's actions, and topics are often framed within the context of national survival or security.
02.2025
13 Speeches
The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotionally charged, particularly when aimed at the government and wind farm developers. Sharp metaphors are employed, labeling government members as "wind energy salesmen" and likening the developers' actions to "extortion and the mafia." The speaker frequently uses rhetorical questions to challenge the competence and moral compass of the ministers, often citing dramatic examples (such as putting a schoolhouse up for sale).
01.2025
19 Speeches
The tone is predominantly critical and argumentative, especially concerning government policies. The author uses strong, emotional comparisons, referring to unsubstantiated representation expenses as "under-the-table payments" and describing the situation as "degrading," in order to highlight the moral issue stemming from the lack of transparency. The appeal is made to both logic (the polluter pays principle) and fairness, backing up the arguments with data and international standards (the Nordic model).