By Plenary Sessions: Rain Epler

The rhetorical style is direct, provocative, and at times confrontational, particularly when addressing a colleague who is criticized for lacking an opinion. He/She employs strong analogies (the prime minister's resignation, the wall of officials) to underscore his/her viewpoints and engages in meta-discussion, disputing the presenter's assessment of the tone of the question.

The speaker's style is direct, critical, and occasionally confrontational, especially when accusing officials of lying and withholding information in Parliamentary committees. He employs strong language (e.g., "that pontification was inappropriate") and relies on logical arguments, contrasting officials' previous answers with plans that were later made public. While the initial address to the Minister of Culture is polite, the questions themselves are framed within a critical economic context.

The tone of the discourse is formal and apprehensive, centered on logical argumentation concerning the efficiency of state governance. A direct question is employed to elicit an evaluation of the efficacy of the debates and the formation of decisions, highlighting procedural uncertainty.

The rhetorical style is investigative, skeptical, and at times provocative, using figurative comparisons (e.g., "drawers with name tags") to criticize the work of the Prosecutor's Office. The tone is formal, but includes sharp remarks and slight irony directed at political opponents, while the minister is praised for a specific answer concerning ornithology.

The rhetorical style is critical and questioning, posing many rhetorical questions to challenge existing laws and situations. Strong emotional language is employed, referencing the public's "great indignation" and describing street protests as "uproar." The speaker rejects metaphors deemed inappropriate and favors logical argumentation, while simultaneously issuing a warning about the consequences of restrictions.

The tone is predominantly critical, confrontational, and at times ironic, especially when addressing the Prime Minister, whose positions are deemed completely out of touch with reality. The speaker employs both logical arguments (such as numerical examples illustrating family livelihoods) and strong ideological appeals, comparing the green transition and its consequences to a "Hunger Games" scenario. It is repeatedly stressed that the government fails to grasp the actual impact of its policies.

The style is analytical, critical, and at times ironic, calling into question the government's energy logic and the honesty of politicians. The speaker employs strong accusations (lying, spin/obfuscation) and highlights the logical contradiction between political slogans and economic reality. The overall tone is concerned and urgent regarding Estonia's competitiveness, relying primarily on economic rationality.

The style is analytical, formal, and focused on details, requiring specific legal and financial schemes. The tone is persistent and demanding, especially in ensuring that answers are received, repeating questions if the minister did not fully grasp them. It uses a brief compliment for the minister in the introduction, only to then present a critical or procedural requirement.

The style is confrontational, analytical, and incisive, focusing on the dubious nature of the Prime Minister's responses and the credibility of the sources. The speaker employs irony, quoting a humorist ("Questions are answerable, answers are questionable"), and is highly detailed, repeatedly posing questions and demanding precise clarification of the official transcript. The aim is to hold the Prime Minister accountable for rhetorical inconsistencies and self-referential statements.

The style is argumentative, at times confrontational and insistent, particularly on the topic of energy policy, where he uses resolute statements ("It won't happen!", "it simply isn't true"). He relies on logical and historical appeals, citing, for example, France's 1974 nuclear program. The speaker is also procedurally precise, asking the session chair to clarify the allocation of questions to avoid confusion.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and confrontational, accusing the government of demagoguery and merely relaying the banks' PR talking points. Emotional expressions are utilized (e.g., "cognitive dissonance," "ugly and embarrassing to watch"), alongside simplified analogies (e.g., the fuel business) to explain economic phenomena. The overall tone is one of concern and inquiry, casting doubt on the prime minister's optimistic narrative.