By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and accusatory, particularly regarding the coalition's "number magic" and "good story," which are undermined by facts. Both logical arguments (such as the comparison to Danish law) and strong emotional expressions are employed, describing the map as a "terrible sight" and the entire project as an undertaking "bearing the hallmarks of a very large fraud." The tone is official, yet it conveys pressing warnings.

The tone is extremely serious, urgent, and critical, describing the situation as "scandalous" and threatening the foundations of democracy. The rhetoric is predominantly logical and evidence-based, utilizing legal references, statistics, and quotes from experts (Ago Samoson, Märt Põder). The speaker repeatedly uses rhetorical questions and emphasizes that turning a blind eye to the problem is unacceptable.

The style is polite and consultative, beginning with an acknowledgment of agreement with the previous speaker's views ("Everything you are saying is correct"). The speaker employs a rhetorical question to introduce their proposal for a referendum, justifying it through a logical appeal to the fundamental nature of a democratic state. An emotional appeal is also utilized, referencing the concern among local residents that they will simply be disregarded.

The rhetorical style is serious and inquisitive, utilizing a rhetorical question (I wanted to ask you, what do you think of an idea like this?). Appeals are made both to constitutional principles and to the emotional concern over the violation of the domestic environment, thereby emphasizing the gravity of the issue.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, employing strong moral arguments and leveling accusations of hypocrisy against members of the government. Preference is given to a mix of logical arguments (such as double taxation) and emotional appeals (such as the punishment of large families), all supported by concrete, real-life examples. The speaker remains skeptical about the suggestion to appeal to the administrative court, citing a previous negative experience.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotional, characterizing the government’s actions as "shameful deceit and manipulation." It employs both legal arguments (dogmatics, proportionality) as well as sharp, populist phrases ("complete rubbish," "with derision"), while stressing that what is being said will not be heeded anyway. Appeals are made to both logic (numerical comparisons) and morality (citing the letter from the nuns).

The rhetorical style is demanding, critical, and obstinate, emphasizing the crying need for transparency. The speaker uses logical argumentation, relying on facts and the comparison of sums (100 million vs 5.7 million), but also adds an emotional appeal, referencing the nationwide drama surrounding teacher salary increases. If there is no response, they repeat the questions to obtain clarification.

The rhetorical style is highly confrontational, analytical, and logic-driven, utilizing direct quotes from the draft law and the explanatory memorandum to refute the opposing side's claims. The speaker repeatedly and emphatically demands that the opponent acknowledge the truth and resolve the matter, which suggests an intense and accusatory tone.