By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The rhetorical style is aggressive, demanding, and repetitive, focusing on the procedural incompetence of the minister and the ministry. It employs both logical arguments (references to HÕNTE) and an emotional framework (the breaking of government promises and scrambling for resources wherever possible). It offers the minister direct, and even condescending, recommendations for managing the ministry and calling the Secretary-General to order.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, sharp, and morally charged, especially when addressing the topic of abortion, which is consistently referred to as "killing." Strong historical comparisons are employed (Soviet Union ideology, discrimination against Jews and Gypsies) to underscore the gravity of the situation. The speaker presents both logical legal demands (requiring an answer from the Prime Minister, given his background as a lawyer) and intense emotional and moral appeals.

The rhetorical style is demanding, principled, and at times confrontational, particularly when procedural matters are being discussed. Sharp and repeated questions are employed to challenge the chair's stance and demand sensible answers. Appeals are made to both the legal standard and elementary logic, describing the combination of opposing proposals as an "error violating basic school logic."

The style is demanding, repetitive, and at times confrontational, focusing on accusing the opposing side of evasion and failing to answer simple questions. The speaker employs formal, legal language and logical appeals, emphasizing the potential unlawfulness of the government's actions and warning against extremely detrimental outcomes for the Republic of Estonia.

The rhetorical style is sharp, demanding, and insistent, focusing on accusing the Prime Minister of avoiding answers and engaging in "obfuscation" or "beating around the bush." The speaker uses repetitive questions and demands explicit, binary confirmation ("Yes or no?"), while simultaneously emphasizing logical and legal argumentation. The tone is urgent, hinting at possible illegal activity by the government.

The style is highly confrontational and passionate, utilizing heavily charged language ("sick ideology," "irrational," "ideological blindness"). The speaker combines logical arguments (diplomatic rules, scientific facts) with emotional appeals regarding the necessity of protecting children. Irony and absurd analogies are employed (such as identifying as the president or Napoleon) to ridicule the opposing side's viewpoints.

The rhetorical style is direct, demanding, and at times sharply confrontational, especially when criticizing opponents and past political decisions (e.g., "the brazen push-through of the project to pervert marriage"). While logical and procedural arguments are employed when discussing the legal system, the tone used when addressing the political climate and social issues is emotionally charged and condemnatory.

The rhetorical style is demanding, persistent, and critical, focusing on logical argumentation and demonstrating the incorrectness of prior responses. The tone is direct, utilizing quotes and legal references to put the opponent under pressure. The speaker emphasizes the fundamental importance of the issue and repeats the question even more specifically to prevent evasion of the answer.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and accusatory, employing strong language (e.g., "outright lie," "ridiculous," "abnormal"). The speaker focuses on the logical refutation of opponents' claims, accusing the prime minister of "high-flying sophistry" and PPA officials of deliberate lying. He begins one speech with a religious message of joy (Easter), providing a moral framework for the value-based criticism.