By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and interrogative, centering on logical arguments and practical consequences. The speaker poses questions for clarification, requesting the minister to either refute or elaborate on his previous statements. The tone is neutral and focuses on procedural efficiency.

The speech is critical and demanding in tone, employing strong emotional terms such as "inappropriate," "cynical," and "psychological terror," particularly in the context of children's mental health. The style is analytical, linking the emotional appeal with political suspicion (recognizing the signature/modus operandi, using fear for mobilization) and demanding unambiguous answers.

The rhetorical style is formal and straightforward, beginning by praising the presenter’s clear delivery and essentially agreeing with their points. The tone regarding the government is extremely skeptical and pessimistic, using the phrase "bad news" and framing its criticism as a probing question designed to confirm its negative "intuition."

The rhetorical style is direct, provocative, and critical, beginning by drawing a contrast between "questions of comfort" and "the uncomfortable question." A logical parallel (Ukraine and Iraq) is employed to compel the government to engage in critical self-reflection. The tone is formal and focuses on political accountability.

The style of the speech is formal and respectful, addressing the esteemed presenter and the session chair. The emphasis is on a logical and analytical approach, posing a question regarding the results of empirical observation in order to assess the policy's impact.

The rhetorical style is questioning and challenging, focusing on logic and numerical accuracy. The speaker presents their viewpoint in the form of a question, demanding a clear justification from the government and avoiding emotional arguments.