By Plenary Sessions: Henn Põlluaas
Total Sessions: 76
Fully Profiled: 76
2025-10-13
15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is questioning and analytical, expressing confusion and criticism toward the logic of political decisions. The tone is professional and focuses on highlighting political contradictions, such as the question of why lowering the VAT fails to stimulate the economy.
2025-10-08
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and emotionally charged, using the word "appalling" to describe the government's position. Both statistical data (57%) and emotional appeal are employed, detailing the difficulties people face living from paycheck to paycheck. Finally, sarcasm is used to criticize the government's recommendation ("eat carrots").
2025-10-07
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is very sharp, demanding, and highly confrontational, especially regarding the minister's evasion of answers. The speaker uses strong emotional language, accusing the minister of mocking members of the Riigikogu and of sheer ignorance. A substantive and relevant answer is consistently demanded, not "blowing smoke" or discussing irrelevant topics (such as ERSO).
2025-10-06
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The speaker employs a highly confrontational and accusatory style, utilizing phrases such as "pure demagoguery" and direct questions like, "Why are you lying here?" At the same time, they demand that the discussion remain strictly fact-based, bolstering their logical argument by citing an official source. The overall tone is intense and straightforward.
2025-09-24
Fifteenth Riigikogu, sixth sitting, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is inquisitive and analytical, employing a formal address ("Esteemed Presenter!"). The speaker utilizes logical argumentation to highlight the illogical nature of the current regulation, employing a rhetorical question concerning the necessity of change.
2025-09-23
15th Riigikogu, 6th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is critical, challenging, and skeptical, employing strong and slightly sarcastic phrases (e.g., "quite naive," "we'll happily take that over"). The speaker uses rhetorical questions to underscore their arguments and focuses on logical/economic appeal to emphasize the shortcomings of the financial planning.
2025-09-16
Fifteenth Riigikogu, sixth sitting, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is accusatory and combative, employing strong language such as "literally stolen" and "cover-up." The speaker relies both on facts (specific sums, asset misappropriation) and a moral appeal, emphasizing that this is money donated by the public. The tone is urgent and demands immediate action.
2025-09-15
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary sitting
The speaker's rhetorical style is critical and insistent, employing emotional language (e.g., "embarrassing to watch") to underscore the gravity of the situation. The appeal itself is logical, focusing on fundamental investment principles and the state's responsibility for securing ammunition supplies. They also reference media coverage (ERR) to support their arguments.
2025-09-10
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
The style is critical, demanding, and inquisitive, highlighting the inadequacy of the draft bill and the lack of justification through rhetorical questions ("How is this even possible?"). There is a strong appeal to logic, procedural rules, and financial accountability to the taxpayer. The tone is formal, addressing the esteemed Chairman and Minister.
2025-09-09
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is direct and interrogative, expressing concern and demanding clarification from the executive branch. The tone is initially appreciative but quickly turns critical, referencing the "silence" surrounding the implementation of strategic decisions. A logical appeal is employed, based on the actions taken by neighboring countries and the lessons drawn from the war in Ukraine.
2025-09-04
15th Riigikogu, extraordinary session of the Riigikogu
The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, critical, and persistent, especially directed at the Riigikogu Board and presiding officers, who are accused of violating the law and failing to fulfill promises. Legal argumentation is employed, but it is delivered with high intensity, expressing astonishment and indignation regarding the continuous raising of illegal demands (a majority vote of the full composition). The speaker uses direct accusations, referring to the board's actions as an "illegal decision" and "lying."
2025-06-18
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is insistent, confrontational, and highly critical, employing strong phrases such as "utterly ridiculous" and "declaration of no confidence." The speaker balances logical arguments (the clogging of the court system, costs) with emotional appeals regarding national security and sovereignty. Finally, he uses a direct call to colleagues: "Let us show our backbone!"
2025-06-16
XV Riigikogu, V Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is critical and insistent, especially regarding security topics where transparency is demanded to curb the spread of conspiracy theories. Both logical arguments are utilized (strengthening society through knowledge) and emotional expressions (selling empty promises, deliberate obfuscation). The speaker presents themselves as an advocate for bold positions, ready to stand up for the interests of Estonia and Ukraine.
2025-06-09
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is highly confrontational and accusatory, directly addressing the Prime Minister with an accusation of lying. A strong emotional appeal is employed ("Aren't you ashamed?") along with intensifying phrases (e.g., "inflation is raging," "to a colossal degree"). The tone is extremely critical and demands accountability.
2025-06-04
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The tone is urgent, direct, and realistic, emphasizing the harsh reality of war ("War is not pretty"). It uses logical arguments (strategic necessity, lack of alternatives) mixed with emotional appeals (references to "meat assaults" and "the empire of evil"). It employs figurative language, such as "fighting a battle with one hand tied behind one's back," and resolutely dismisses emotional objections.
2025-05-21
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session.
The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and forceful, employing strong emotional appeals, particularly by referencing responsibility measured in "the blood of young men and women." Polarizing and condemnatory terms are used (e.g., "green madness," "simpletons," "suicidal"), and Isamaa's realistic warning is contrasted with the "populism and wishful thinking" of other parties. The argumentation relies on both historical parallels and the factual experiences of the war in Ukraine.
2025-05-13
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session
The tone is confrontational, accusatory, and deeply concerned, stressing that energy policy is entangled in a "web of lies." The speaker employs powerful emotional appeals, claiming that the goal of high energy prices is "literally to destroy the country and the economy." The arguments are backed up by specific data and international comparisons in an effort to convince the public to see through the deception.
2025-05-06
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is formal and respectful (addressing the presiding officer and the minister), as well as analytical, emphasizing the seriousness and urgency of the situation ("critically necessary"). The speaker poses direct, policy-focused questions to the Minister to gain clarity on funding and strategy, employing logical argumentation.
2025-05-05
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is formal and sharply critical, employing direct and challenging questions to dispute the government's policies and actions. The tone is logical and grounded in the evaluation of policy outcomes, emphasizing the inadequacy of the measures implemented. Rhetorical questions are used to highlight the contradictions inherent in the government's activities.
2025-04-16
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal and argumentative, relying heavily on legal and constitutional arguments. However, the speech also includes sharp criticism and emotional assessments, such as "demagoguery," "inappropriate and false," and "left-wing extremist ideological pressure." The speaker repeatedly uses the term "rubber stamp" to describe the role of the Riigikogu, emphasizing the urgency and injustice of the situation.
2025-04-14
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is pressing, critical, and demanding, stressing that the issue must be "dealt with very seriously." The speaker employs both logical arguments (statistics) and emotional appeal (highlighting the concerns of the fishermen). The style is direct and concludes with a sharp question demanding a concrete plan from the opposing party.
2025-04-08
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is highly combative and provocative, employing strong negative judgments ("absurd," "silly," "the foolishness of left-wing radicals"). The speaker balances logical argumentation (referencing studies) with emotional appeal, presenting direct accusations and rhetorical questions regarding the opponents' motives.
2025-03-26
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is critical and combative, employing strong emotional charges ("dangerous," "perplexing") when highlighting security threats. The speaker relies on logical oppositions and questions to emphasize the political inconsistency and double standards of the opposing parties (gun permits vs. voting rights).
2025-03-17
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is highly combative, urgent, and emotional, expressing deep concern and frustration regarding the Prime Minister's responses. Strong language and rhetorical questions are employed to emphasize the catastrophic nature of the demographic crisis and the government's alleged lack of interest. The tone is accusatory and demanding.
2025-03-10
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is extremely urgent and critical, emphasizing the vital importance of the subject ("a matter of life and death"). Both historical data and logical risk analysis are employed, but this is packaged as emotionally charged criticism directed at the government's inaction, labeling the situation "ridiculous" and "deplorable."
2025-02-26
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The tone is polite, constructive, and concerned, beginning with praise for the draft bill under discussion. Logical argumentation is used, highlighting a direct correlation between the cormorant population and the disappearance of fish species. An urgent appeal is made to solve the problem at the legislative level ("to enshrine it in law").
2025-02-25
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is urgent, serious, and at times confrontational, urging the public to follow the discussion closely. It employs both logical arguments (security checks, the purpose of the constitution) and emotional, cautionary language, describing the opposition as playing a "two-faced game." Strong metaphors are utilized, such as "writing a bomb into our constitution" and "that is just absurd."
2025-01-30
Fifteenth Estonian Parliament, fifth session, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and insistent, emphasizing the seriousness of the situation and the geopolitical threat. Strong accusations are leveled against the coalition ("steamroller politics," "political spin," "pro-Russian blackmail") and rhetorical questions are posed to call their actual goals into question. The appeal is primarily logical (security and constitutional risks), but it is conveyed using emotionally charged language.
2025-01-28
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal and direct, utilizing the forms of address "Esteemed Chairman" and "Dear Minister." The speech is logical and based on a factual reference to a neighboring country's policy, presenting this as a question to the government. Emotional appeals are not used; the focus is on the substance of the policy.
2025-01-27
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is combative and insistent, accusing opponents of missing the core of the issue and normalizing deviation. Strong emotional appeals concerning children's psychological health are used, along with rhetorical questions designed to cast doubt on the opponents' motives.
2025-01-22
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session.
The speaker employs a sharply accusatory and demanding rhetorical style, utilizing direct questions to challenge the opponent's integrity ("Would you finally honestly admit..."). The argument relies on logic and facts (specifically, car sales data) to highlight the discrepancy between the stated tax goals and the actual reality. The overall tone is combative and critical, leveling accusations against the government for providing incomplete and dishonest reasoning.
2025-01-21
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session
The rhetoric is extremely urgent, critical, and cautionary, using strong emotional and historical parallels (the demise of the Republic of Estonia) to underscore the consequences of inaction. The speaker presents logical arguments (the necessary sum, production capacity) and concludes with a confrontational question regarding the "mental reason" for the inaction.
2024-12-10
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal and question-focused, addressing the presenter politely. A specific, real-life example (anecdote) is employed to illustrate a broader political issue, thereby balancing logical argumentation with practical concern. The tone is concerned, yet professional and solution-oriented.
2024-12-09
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary sitting
The style is extremely combative, critical, and accusatory, particularly toward the minister, who is accused of ignoring the Riigikogu and displaying "extreme arrogance." Sharp criticisms are employed (e.g., "completely unheard of," "absurd"), and emphasis is placed on procedural injustice and the assertion of falsehoods. The tone is formal yet emotionally charged, demanding order and accountability.
2024-12-05
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is critical, insistent, and concerned, utilizing strong evaluations such as "absurd," "unprecedented," and "anomaly." The speaker relies on logical arguments and references to past events (the PPA scandal) and foreign incidents (Latvia) to underscore the gravity of the situation. The overall tone is formal yet emotionally charged, emphasizing the necessity for immediate action.
2024-12-04
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and forceful, employing strong emotional appeals and historical parallels (the events of 1940) to dramatize the current situation. Sharp and unconventional language is used ("bullsh…", "blatant lie," "cesspits"), and the deliberate destructiveness of the government's actions is emphasized. The speaker poses many rhetorical questions and concludes on a pessimistic note, seeing the future "in the darkest colors."
2024-11-07
15th Parliament, 4th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is critical and forceful, underscoring the "catastrophic" nature of the situation. The speaker employs logical and procedural arguments, demanding that responsibility be established and legal violations investigated. The style is formal and inquiry-driven, seeking clarity as to why there is a lack of interest in investigating the causes of the situation.
2024-11-06
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is critical and emotionally charged, employing hyperbolic and negative adjectives (absurd, grotesque, catastrophic) to describe the budget situation. Although the address to the Auditor General is respectful, the content itself is combative and skeptical regarding the government's policies.
2024-10-23
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and direct, especially when addressing a member of the government. Both logical appeals (specific facts and statistics) and personal attacks are employed, accusing the minister of arrogance, ignoring criticism, and deceiving the public. The tone is demanding, emphasizing the necessity of honesty.
2024-10-22
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is questioning and critical, emphasizing the substantive emptiness of the opposing side's arguments ("unfortunately, nothing was found"). The speaker uses formal language, addressing the presiding officer and the presenter, and raises logical challenges, demanding background and characterization for the claims.
2024-10-21
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is highly aggressive, critical, and emotional, repeatedly employing words such as "embarrassing," "shame," and "shameful" to describe the government's actions. The speaker supports their moral and historical appeals (the duty to fight for Estonia) with specific statistical data regarding the proportion of Ukrainian men. They present accusations directly, calling into question the competence and knowledge of the Minister of the Interior. The style is fast-paced and demanding, emphasizing the urgency of the topic.
2024-10-16
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style in budget debates is sharply aggressive, emotional, and contains personal accusations, characterizing the budget as "embarrassing" and "built on sand." Colloquial expressions are used ("puder ja kapsad," meaning a complete mess or jumble), and a substantive explanation is demanded. On foreign policy issues, the style is formal, procedural, and emphasizes moral condemnation, calling for support for a declaration condemning a crime against humanity.
2024-10-14
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary sitting
The discourse is extremely combative, emotional, and accusatory, utilizing strong expressions such as "appalling," "cynical," and the dramatic metaphor "after us, let the deluge come." The appeal relies on moral indignation and an emotional connection with vulnerable groups, aiming to highlight the government's indifference. The tone is urgent and cautionary.
2024-10-07
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is direct, logical, and challenging, relying on data (investment figures) to refute the minister's previous claim. Although the salutation is formal ("Honorable Minister!"), the question itself is pointed and presents a direct objection to the government's explanations.
2024-09-16
The 15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is highly confrontational and accusatory, employing direct rhetorical questions to assail the opponent ("why are you slandering and insulting?"). The discourse is emotionally charged, stressing the moral imperative to protect the honor of national heroes while denouncing the opponent's conduct as "slander and insult." The appeal targets core values and the example being provided to the youth.
2024-09-11
Fifteenth Riigikogu, fourth session, plenary session
The style is analytical and concerned, focusing on logical argumentation and facts (the number of weapons versus the length of the border). The speaker uses direct questions to demand clarification regarding the plans for establishing a credible artillery capability. The tone is formal and businesslike.
2024-07-15
15th Riigikogu, Extraordinary session of the Riigikogu
The rhetorical style is sharply critical and forceful, accusing the government of incompetence and "green madness," and warning that the country is falling deeper into the abyss. Both logical arguments (the impact of tax increases on consumption) and emotional appeals (the ability of families and rural areas to cope) are employed. The speaker also presented an ironic proposal to impose a car tax solely on the members and voters of the governing parties who support it, in order to create a "targeted and needs-based tax measure."
2024-06-10
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The style is serious and urgent, posing a critical question about national defense strategy, which is driven by real-world conflict experience. Logical arguments are employed, based on examples from the war in Ukraine and the economic effectiveness of mines. The speaker uses a powerful metaphor, referring to mines as "the poor man's atomic bombs."
2024-06-05
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotional, repeatedly employing strong negative phrases such as "government of liars," "cynical," and "absurd." There is a strong appeal made regarding the well-being and livelihood of the Estonian people and families, and sharp rhetorical questions are posed concerning the government's motives. The style itself is formal, but the substance is extremely critical, focusing on morality and procedural injustice.
2024-06-03
Fifteenth Riigikogu, third session, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is confrontational, critical, and insistent, employing repeated questions and accusations regarding the government’s inaction. The speaker utilizes powerful and ironic analogies (e.g., murderers and pedophiles vs. pornography) and a rhetorical question ("one big Euro-family together") to underscore the importance of national legislation. The tone is formal yet emotionally charged, highlighting the economic emergency.
2024-05-15
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is sharply aggressive and accusatory, employing emotional and inflammatory labels, such as "insane climate fanatics." The speaker poses direct questions that challenge the credibility of the minister's statement ("Your statement is highly contradictory"). The address is a mix of political criticism and a personal attack on competence.
2024-05-14
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, employing strong and emotional imagery, such as "absolutely all windows to mass immigration." The address is framed as a rhetorical question, which underscores the conflict between the government's actions and the future of Estonia. The tone is urgent and cautionary.
2024-05-13
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is sharply accusatory, critical, and combative. The speaker employs a repetitive enumeration of the government's alleged failures ("is not agreeing... is not agreeing"), which establishes an intense and rapid rhythm. The speech concludes by directly questioning loyalty, suggesting an emotional and urgent tone.
2024-05-09
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is analytical, formal, and skeptical. The appeal is purely logical, relying on the direct citation of international standards and contrasting them with the alleged reality of the Estonian system. The tone is interrogative and doubtful, concluding with a direct question regarding the system's compliance.
2024-05-08
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is highly combative and emotional, employing powerful historical analogies (Pavlik Morozov, NKVD, Matrosov) and the term "Orwellian dystopia." The tone is urgent and critical, balancing emotional warnings with a logical presentation of legal and economic risks. A cynical and ironic tone is used when describing the government's actions.
2024-05-06
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session.
The rhetoric is provocative and critical, aiming either to hold the minister accountable or to shift the blame onto other government members. The style is formal, but employs a strategic tactic: citing a third party (Tarand) and contrasting this with the minister's own "praise to the heavens."
2024-04-17
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and insistent, stressing that policy decisions must be evidence-based, not a matter of faith. Both logical arguments (references to OECD reports and the cancelled tender) and emotional appeals concerning the erosion of public trust are employed. Opponents are accused of outright lying ("blatant lie") and offering pathetic responses, often utilizing rhetorical questions to highlight the government's inaction.
2024-04-16
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is sharply aggressive and confrontational, particularly concerning the minister's responses, which are deemed evasive. Strong value-based arguments (identity, taxpayer money) and rhetorical questions are employed to express outrage and demand clarification. The tone is accusatory and procedurally critical, stressing that the minister is answering "something entirely different."
2024-04-10
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session
The style of address is formal and respectful, directed toward the esteemed presiding officer and the rapporteur. The rhetoric focuses on logical analysis and the utilization of data, posing direct questions in order to obtain a specific political forecast. The tone is neutral and information-seeking.
2024-04-08
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is extremely combative, alarming, and accusatory, employing strong emotional appeals and historical comparisons to the Soviet occupation and Russification. The description of the government's actions relies on labeling ("genuinely Soviet mixed schools") and extreme terminology such as "genocide" and "criminal."
2024-04-03
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The rhetoric is urgent, emotional, and highly combative, employing powerful imagery ("the horrors of war," "murdered people"). Absurd comparisons are used to ridicule the opponents' actions (Võhma/Võõpsu versus Tallinn schools). The piece concludes with a direct accusation, questioning whether the government’s actions serve Putin’s interests, which demonstrates an extremely sharp level of confrontation.
2024-04-01
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The style is extremely confrontational, emotional, and accusatory, employing sharp phrases such as "propaganda glorification of the government of liars" and "pathological lie." The speaker emphasizes the unity of patriotism and love for the homeland, contrasting this with the government's actions, which he labels "sabotage" and "criminal." He uses personal address and an anecdote (a Defense League course) to criticize the Minister of the Interior.
2024-03-20
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, employing highly charged emotional terms such as "tax terror" and "public outrage." Sarcasm and irony are favored, particularly when commenting on the coalition's actions, highlighting how they only seem to mobilize when financial issues are on the table. Numerous rhetorical questions are raised concerning the government's neglect of duties, underscoring the lack of public trust rather than relying on logical arguments.
2024-03-18
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The style is direct, critical, and slightly confrontational, utilizing the phrase "let's be honest" and accusing previous inaction. The speaker uses anecdotal evidence (a conversation with another minister) as a rhetorical device to introduce the politically charged topic of the deep state.
2024-03-13
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is urgent, critical, and at times confrontational, employing strong language such as "tax terror" while highlighting the existential threats facing the nation. The speaker utilizes logical arguments and historical parallels (the 1918 War of Independence) to bolster their positions, particularly regarding national defense.
2024-03-12
15th Riigikogu, 3rd plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is critical, concerned, and interrogative, often employing rhetorical questions to cast doubt on the opponents' actions and expose their underlying motives. The tone is accusatory, particularly regarding the issue of security screening, where there are hints of hidden government agendas ("skeletons buried somewhere very deep?"). The appeal is primarily logical, underscoring the presence of security risks and procedural flaws.
2024-03-11
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is highly aggressive, accusatory, and emotionally charged, employing strong terms such as "inappropriate," "tax terror," and "killing the Estonian people." The speaker issues challenges through rhetorical questions, calling into question the prime minister's priorities and knowledge. The overall tone is urgent and condemnatory.
2024-03-06
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The speaker's style is predominantly combative, passionate, and sharp, employing powerful emotional appeals, particularly concerning women's rights and Islamic fundamentalism. They utilize dramatic language (e.g., "to the barricades," "grown explosively") and level direct accusations, labeling opponents as hypocrites and comparing them to Nazis or racists. The objective is to cast doubt on the opponents' motives and generate a sense of urgency.
2024-03-06
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, press briefing
The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and centered on logical argumentation and procedural simplicity. The speaker employs a rhetorical question to challenge the complex approach the prime minister chose for the legislative amendment, stressing that a simple solution is already available.
2024-03-04
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The style is extremely confrontational, aggressive, and accusatory, employing strong emotional appeals and personal attacks (e.g., "prime minister of the government of liars," "absurd talk"). Extreme comparisons are used (e.g., an NKVD operative’s quote, communism) to characterize the government’s policy. The speaker demands straightforward answers, accusing the opponent of lying and failing to grasp elementary concepts.
2024-02-22
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary sitting
The style is straightforward and critical, employing powerful metaphors (such as "steamroller," "wolf in sheep's clothing," and "the root of all evil") to critique the coalition and election lists. The appeals are primarily logical, centering on the necessity of stability and accountability, yet the tone is occasionally ironic and dismissive of opponents ("total rubbish"). It relies heavily on personal experience and statistical generalization, even though concrete data is not provided.
2024-02-21
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The tone is urgent, combative, and accusatory, utilizing strong emotional appeals to emphasize the threat to the nation-state. The government's actions are referred to as "criminal," and opponents are labeled "national renegades." The arguments are a blend of legal references, statistics, and sharp criticism, highlighting negative comparisons (e.g., the example of Latvia) and warning against Russification.
2024-02-15
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The speaker's style is formal, courteous, and businesslike, beginning by thanking the presenter for the substantive presentation and excellent answers. The rhetoric is geared toward a logical explanation, requesting a brief clarification of a complex economic question. The tone is rather conciliatory and information-seeking.
2024-02-13
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and urgent, emphasizing the necessity of immediate action in the spheres of security and the economy. Strong emotional appeals are employed, linking the government's activities to corruption, untrustworthiness, and the betrayal of national interests ("shameful," "the lying Estonian government"). The speech is structured around a systematic critique of the government's four foreign policy pillars, utilizing both logical comparisons (Finland's defense capability) and outright accusations.
2024-02-08
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session.
The style is highly combative, passionate, and at times sharp, mixing logical arguments (health risks, legal procedure) with strong emotional appeals (disgust, revulsion). Loaded ideological terms ("green crazies," "eco-fascists") are used, along with personal attacks directed at opponents, accusing them of demagoguery, "utterly stupid drivel," and low levels of competence. The speaker prefers storytelling (e.g., the potato salad example) instead of presenting dry data.
2024-02-07
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary sitting.
The speaker's rhetorical style is polite and respectful, addressing the presenter with the words, "Dear presenter!" and starting with thanks. The style is rather analytical and geared toward seeking the broader picture, emphasizing the international scope of the problem.