By Plenary Sessions: Henn Põlluaas

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.