By Plenary Sessions: Rain Epler

The style is combative, critical, and forceful, utilizing strong ideological terminology such as "green frenzy" (or "eco-hysteria") and "craving for totalitarianism." It relies on international news and real-life examples to bolster its conservative and anti-government message. It maintains formal language usage but incorporates emotional appeals directed at voters.

The rhetorical style is sharply aggressive, critical, and at times personal, employing colorful metaphors (e.g., "greyhounds chasing a rabbit," "the dustbin of history"). The tone is anxious and cautionary, highlighting the symptoms of a democracy crisis, but it also includes humor (the theme of pushing a button). The speaker advocates for brevity and concreteness, suggesting Charles Bukowski's poems as practice material for achieving this.

The rhetorical style is confrontational and personal, focusing on sharply criticizing the opponent's communication style and contrasting the respective styles. Colorful and blunt expressions ("you blurted out," "political broiler") are employed, along with narrative elements (Pevkur's example), to illustrate the speaker's position. The speaker also utilizes a rhetorical device, accusing the minister of bringing up the topic of threatening self-defense, a subject that was not covered in the original question.

The rhetorical style is highly combative and accusatory, focusing on the opponent's personal dishonesty and incompetence, and directly calling him a liar and a puppet. The speaker relies heavily on logical arguments, reading out excerpts from the State Audit Office report and yesterday's transcript to substantiate his claims with facts. Historical examples (2014, 2019) are also used for the introduction and to establish context.

The rhetorical style is sharply aggressive and skeptical, employing irony and direct personal accusations aimed at the minister (e.g., calling him a "marionette"). The speaker relies on facts (the State Audit Office report) but presents them as emotionally charged rhetorical questions designed to call the minister's integrity and competence into question.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, combative, and forceful, employing strong ideological terms such as "liberal-democratic totalitarianism" and "bastard language." The argumentation relies heavily on statistical data and logical appeals, but also uses dramatic comparisons (George Orwell) to characterize the government's actions. The speaker admonishes colleagues and ministers, calling into question their credibility and the soundness of their decisions.

The style of rhetoric is predominantly combative, direct, and sharply critical, especially towards the Riigikogu board and the ministers. Sarcasm and irony are often employed (e.g., suggesting the closure of the legal department because laws are not being followed, or referencing the Prime Minister's walk in Kadriorg). Logical arguments and procedural details are frequently intertwined with emotional accusations (e.g., labeling the board's actions as "cowardly and base").