By Plenary Sessions: Rain Epler

The speaker’s style is analytical, critical, and at times combative, especially during energy debates. He/She uses logical arguments and data (profitability ratios) but does not shy away from sharp retorts, for example, accusing a colleague of being unable to answer questions. He/She employs rhetorical questions and parallels to highlight the illogical nature and hypocrisy of opponents' positions.

The rhetorical style is sharply confrontational and accusatory, utilizing sarcasm and emotional narratives (the story of old lady Mari) to illustrate the government's dishonesty and falsehoods. The speaker criticizes both procedural corruption and political betrayal, all while adhering to the formal structure of a parliamentary address. They also make note of historical moments, such as Jürgen Ligi’s admission of error.

The speaker's style is combative, critical, and ideological, employing strong phrases such as "downward spiral" and "slogans akin to building communism." They use both logical arguments (the regressive impact of subsidies) and emotional appeals (referencing poverty and historical memory). Furthermore, procedural criticism is leveled regarding the behavior of the ministers and the emptiness of the chamber.

The rhetorical style is questioning and concerned, presenting direct challenges to the minister regarding the policy's message and philosophical foundation ("What message does this send?"). It employs both technical political language (minimum requirement, additional funding) and a personal, emotional example—that of a stove-heated house—to illustrate how risk awareness is being raised. The tone is formal, but critical in substance.

The rhetorical style is direct, sharp, and accusatory, focusing on questioning the minister's political motives. Rhetorical questions are employed to highlight the vagueness of the minister's responses and to suggest the deliberate creation of media hype. The tone is critical and demands straightforwardness.

The tone is critical and concerned, employing strong emotional language (for instance, describing the legislative framework as "sounding quite appalling"). The speaker utilizes logical argumentation and philosophical questions, such as the discussion surrounding the nature of democracy and the paradox of convenience. They also use comparisons (e.g., the narrative illustrating the importance of free speech) and attempt to shift the focus from the technical discussion to questions of trust and clarity.

The speaker’s style is highly combative and blunt, employing strong accusatory language such as "travesty of justice" and hinting at the presiding officer’s "lack of manhood" when dealing with the heavy artillery. The focus is on logical argumentation concerning procedural rules, but this is delivered alongside emotionally charged criticism. Figurative language is also used, for example, referring to the bank tax as a "whip."

The rhetorical style is highly confrontational, demanding, and accusatory, emphasizing that the Prime Minister's actions are "very sad." The speaker sets strict conditions for the response and warns the Prime Minister against evasion, promising that otherwise they will not listen to "drivel." The style is formal, but the content is aggressive.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and confrontational, particularly when addressing the minister. Strong judgments and labeling are employed, describing the minister's positions as "pseudoscientific" and "ridiculing science." The appeals are primarily logical, relying on international examples (the United Kingdom, Latvia, Lithuania) and demanding political accountability.