By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and accusatory, highlighting the contradiction between the government's rhetoric and reality, as well as its hypocritical behavior. It employs strong imagery ("to fleece one's own people," "to dirty one's hands") and analogies (the example of marriage) to illustrate the fundamental flaws of the discussion.

The rhetorical style is sharp, demanding, and repetitive, focusing on the prime minister's accountability and his inability to answer direct questions. The speaker employs principled arguments regarding international relations, presenting hypothetical scenarios (e.g., a protest by the Latvian or Hungarian foreign minister in Estonia) to highlight the contradictory nature of the government's actions. The tone is accusatory and stresses that this constitutes a violation of elementary principles.

The style is highly confrontational, accusatory, and direct, beginning with the accusation that the opponent is outright lying. The speaker utilizes logical arguments and external sources (ERR, Ministry of Finance analysis) to discredit the opponent, focusing heavily on emphasizing their lack of trustworthiness. The tone is sharp and demanding, repeatedly raising questions that have gone unanswered.

The rhetorical style is formal when submitting inquiries, but becomes sharp, accusatory, and insistent when commenting on the answers. Strong logical and moral arguments are employed, referencing the constitution, and rhetorical questions are repeatedly posed (e.g., "What would you call a country like that?"). The minister's replies are criticized as "fumbling and evasion," and the situation is compared to a "terrible dystopia."

The speech is combative, critical, and urgent in tone, beginning with an apology for the informal nature of the address due to the lack of notes. The style blends legal logic (citing the constitution) with strong emotional and accusatory appeals, calling the proposed scheme a "fraudulent scheme" and the opposition "deliberate liars." The objective is to create the impression that Estonian interests are being protected against irresponsible policy.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and urgent, emphasizing a genuine fear of war. The speaker employs both emotional appeals (a catastrophe for the Estonian people and state) and logical arguments rooted in the constitution. He forcefully rejects the government's accusations of spreading Kremlin narratives, branding it a propagandistic framework.

The style is formal and interrogative, presenting a complex hypothetical legal scenario that requires a legal opinion from the respondent. The speaker employs logical argumentation and legal constructs, avoiding emotional appeals.

The rhetorical style is analytical, inquisitive, and at times sharply critical, particularly concerning official statements and the inaction of institutions. The speaker employs logical appeals and striking analogies (such as the example of the café owner) to bring fundamental issues to the forefront. He stresses that he refuses to believe "mere assertions" and demands action grounded in facts and evidence.

The rhetorical style is serious, insistent, and critical, expressing disappointment with the political climate in the Riigikogu, which has devolved into "exchanging slogans" and "empty rhetoric." The speaker employs both logical arguments (referencing the requirements for verifiability and constitutionality) and strong warnings, emphasizing that "arrogant disregard" will lead to a collapse, and the loss of trust jeopardizes national defense and adherence to the rule of law.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and accusatory, utilizing strong expressions such as "irrational," "arbitrariness," and "being seized." The speaker combines logical argumentation (referencing legal statutes) with emotional accusations concerning the government's motives (personal gain). Simplifying logical examples (like the Kohtla-Järve bus example) are also employed to illustrate procedural absurdity.

The rhetorical style is confrontational and accusatory, employing direct questions that cast doubt on the prime minister's honesty ("Did you make a mistake in that claim, or did you lie?"). The argumentation is strongly logical and text-based, relying on legal references and an analysis of the contract's content. The third speaker adopts a purely procedural and critical tone, focusing on the violation of the rules governing the Riigikogu session.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and intellectual, opening with a comparison between the opponents' manner of speech and Soviet-era sloganeering rhetoric. The tone is pressing, emphasizing that the lack of trust is a fundamental issue leading to a "collapse." The appeals are primarily logical, relying on statistics and cited sources, but they are framed by an emotional concern regarding the decay of democracy.

The rhetorical style is confrontational and accusatory, employing direct questions regarding responsibility and values. The critique is structured around logical comparisons (the resignation of the Lithuanian minister) and constitutional arguments. The tone is formal yet urgent, demanding clarification on how the minister’s alleged positions align with the fundamental principles of the state.

The rhetorical style is highly confrontational, accusatory, and demanding, repeatedly posing pointed questions to the presiding officer and government representatives. Strong emotional appeals are employed, accusing the opposing side of deliberate insult and telling blatant lies. The speaker demands an end to the evasion of responsibility and the presentation of facts, not speculation.