By Plenary Sessions: Rain Epler

The rhetorical style is concerned, critical, and direct, beginning with the statement that the speaker is "a little concerned." The speaker employs logical arguments based on concrete examples of the actions of government members (Ligi, Tsahkna) and the resulting media coverage. Strong language is used, such as "ridiculed" and "outcry," to describe the opposing side's actions, thereby calling the government's competence into question.

The style is formal, analytical, and interrogative, addressing the minister and colleagues directly. The speaker relies on logical arguments and seeks specific data (e.g., regarding the scale of abuse or financial involvement) to deepen the discussion. The tone is considered and information-seeking, aiming to educate both themselves and the listeners.

The style is formal, analytical, and challenging, especially when addressing the chair. The speaker employs logical argumentation, demanding clarity and a consistent approach in procedural matters, while avoiding emotional appeals. In the introduction to social topics, the speaker adopts a cautionary tone, describing the narrative of scientific consensus as dangerous.

The style is predominantly combative, critical, and at times sarcastic, particularly when describing the actions of the coalition partners (the Social Democrats). The speaker employs both emotional appeals (references to empty stomachs and patriotism) and logical arguments and statistics (inflation figures, the cost of living compared to Tokyo). The speaker is frank and uses strong language (e.g., "stupid spending," "it's getting ridiculous").

The speaker's rhetorical style is combative, challenging, and sharp, calling on the minister to be "brave" and to "actually get something done." He uses logical parallels (fuel excise duty) and international comparisons to support his argument regarding the benefits of a tax cut. The speech concludes with a sharp attack, referencing the prime minister's quote about the foolishness of the government's actions.

The rhetorical style is skeptical, critical, and occasionally ironic, employing highly charged emotional terms such as "absurd," "utter nonsense," and "green frenzy." In addition to logical arguments, the speaker relies on illustrative examples and hypothetical scenarios (such as the loss of 10% in subsidies) to underscore the futility of the regulations. He also draws a historical parallel, referencing the Estonian capacity to implement foolish policies with German precision, in order to criticize the current transposition of European regulations.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, accusing ministers of self-deception and dishonesty, and of living in a "fantasy world." Strong moral and emotional appeals are utilized (focusing on normality and stress levels), combining them with references to dry statistics and tax hikes. The concluding tone is urgent, calling for the immediate collapse of the "woke world" and the restoration of normality.

The rhetorical style is confident, provocative, and at times personal, especially when addressing the Prime Minister (referencing the PM's agreement with his earlier writings). He employs strong metaphors, calling the Social Democrats "a weight chained to the country's development," and demands "more vigorous leadership." The appeals are a mix of political pressure, logical arguments, and soliciting personal opinion.

The style is direct and challenging, utilizing rhetorical questions to underscore the inequality of transparency standards. The government's stance is sharply criticized, labeled as "technocratic" and "pulled out of thin air." The speaker calls for a substantive debate, grounding the arguments in logical consistency and fairness.

The style is sharp, critical, and often ironic, employing analogies (the simpletons/Schilda fools) and metaphors (a fairy tale). The speaker accuses the government of weak political leadership ("a state run by officials") and bravado (in its preparation for desynchronization). He calls on the Prime Minister to boldly and swiftly revise his current views, also offering the option of handing over leadership to others.