By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The speaker's style is formal, but the tone rapidly shifts to demanding and accusatory, particularly when criticizing the committee's actions. Strong rhetorical questions are employed to highlight the injustice and inadequacy of the opposing side's actions, accusing them of wanting to kill the draft bill right in the bud. The style is rather emotional and emphasizes procedural injustice.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and sharply critical, employing strong expressions such as "glaring inconsistency." The argumentation is strongly logical and relies on legal norms and expert data, aiming to emphasize the fundamental nature of the procedural violations. The tone is serious and demanding, urging that the constitution be taken seriously.

The rhetorical style is formal, cautious, and substantive, emphasizing the need to discuss the sensitive topic calmly and avoid simplistic, slogan-like accusations. The speaker employs logical argumentation, relying on facts, quotations, and constitutional principles, and is demanding regarding the prime minister’s response, seeking concrete evidence. He begins his address with a reservation, stressing personal dignity and resistance to pressure.

The style is analytical and inquiry-driven, combining logical, data-based argumentation (regarding taxes) with a moral and urgent tone (regarding health risks). The first speaker presents their calculations to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the official data. The second speaker emphasizes that the topics should garner widespread attention from people "with functioning reason and conscience." Both speeches are formal, respectfully addressing the presiding officer and the rapporteur.

The style is sharply critical and combative, employing strong parallels (mandatory renovation versus mandatory vaccination) and references to totalitarian structures familiar from the Soviet Union era. The speaker utilizes both detailed technical issues and emotional appeals concerning the defense of freedom and property rights, ultimately accusing the government of existing in a parallel reality.

The style is formal yet critical, and at times confrontational, particularly toward coalition members of parliament (MPs), who are encouraged to participate in the debate and justify their votes against proposed legislation. The speaker employs logical argumentation, highlighting specific instances where accountability is lacking (e.g., the PPA’s unlawful ruling and the personal financial liability of officials). The tone is one of concern, emphasizing the dangers inherent in the abuse of state authority.

The style is sharp, critical, and directly confrontational, especially towards the Prime Minister, who is accused of failing to respond and being dishonest. Strong emotional appeals and moral judgments are employed (such as calling abortions "liquidation" or "killing"). The speaker frequently uses rhetorical questions and irony (for instance, on the topic of teachers' salaries), accusing the government of giving cold, mechanical responses and lacking the political will ("they can, but they don't want to").

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and grounded in persuasion, yet it incorporates powerful emotional appeals, particularly when describing the humiliating and undignified treatment faced by mothers. The author utilizes quotes from court rulings and media coverage (specifically the program "Pealtnägija") and draws a comparison between the current regulation and ideological coercion (for instance, in the context of vaccine freedom). The author is prepared to answer questions comprehensively, even if it means acknowledging the absence of specific factual data.

The rhetorical style is extremely formal and respectful, utilizing salutations such as "Esteemed Chair" and "Honorable Colleagues." The address is brief, direct, and focuses solely on presenting the bill's objective and soliciting support, entirely lacking emotional or complex logical arguments.