By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and emotionally charged, employing strong value-laden terms such as "totalitarian," "repugnant ideology," and "direct lie." The speaker relies on both logical arguments (proving the existence of sanctions) as well as rhetorical questions and hypothetical examples (e.g., the firing of competent men due to quotas).

The style is initially deliberately calm, specific, and non-emotional, intended to differentiate itself from the preceding "emotional tirade." Later, the speaker shifts, becoming assertive and argumentative, accusing the minister of "waving the Russian card" and demanding clear accountability through repeated questioning. The speaker utilizes rhetorical questions and stresses the necessity of a simple, concrete answer.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and repetitive, particularly when focusing on the issue of the mandate. Strong accusations are employed (lying, deception) and emphasis is placed on the logical argument concerning the violation of democratic procedure. The speaker criticizes the respondents for failing to answer the questions, choosing instead to berate others or discuss irrelevant topics.

The rhetorical style is direct, demanding, and analytical, focusing on logical argumentation (taxes versus public benefits). The speaker requires the opposing side to either acknowledge or refute specific facts, employing a sharp tone regarding the government’s strategic failure. The style is formal and centers on political accountability.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, moralistic, and accusatory, employing strong emotional expressions (e.g., "a story of shame," "brazen dishonesty," "a farce"). The speaker strongly emphasizes the lack of respect for the rule of law and uses many rhetorical questions and direct personal attacks. He contrasts genuine democracy (popular initiatives, a reliable electoral system) with the "smokescreen" and "pseudo-issues" created by the coalition.

The style is legally precise, critical, and highly demanding, emphasizing the principles of the rule of law and expressing personal frustration regarding the lack of accountability. It employs logical appeals, specifically addressing the Prime Minister in their capacity as a lawyer, alongside recurring questions about responsibility and core values. The tone is sharp and coercive, intended to compel the government to acknowledge its unlawful actions.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and critical, emphasizing logical arguments and constitutional principles. The speaker presents systematic questions and remarks, criticizing the superficial, slogan-like nature of the draft's justifications and demanding substantive clarity. The tone is academic, proposing weighty conceptual solutions, such as the separation of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court.

The style is passionate, direct, and at times sharply polemical, especially when addressing social and ideological issues. The author employs strong value judgments and emotional language (e.g., "ridiculous," "total absurdity") and supports their views with examples that push logic to the point of absurdity (such as changing one's age) and precise citation of the legal text.

The style is formal, logical, and critical, emphasizing legal continuity and the importance of the rule of law. It uses simplifying parallels (such as traffic and school assignments) to illustrate the unreasonableness of the government's actions, and also addresses the young people present on the balcony. The tone is forceful, offering concrete and multi-layered steps to resolve the issue.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and confrontational, particularly regarding the quality of the opposing party's analyses, which are labeled "utterly primitive." Logical arguments and technical terminology are used to emphasize the primitiveness of the opponent's errors, accusing them of "waving their numbers around."

The rhetorical style is sharply confrontational and accusatory, particularly aimed at the Prime Minister, who is criticized for poor performance, arrogance, and evading questions. Logical arguments are employed (the Constitution, specific conditions, risk analysis), but the tone remains insistent and demanding, emphasizing the necessity of accountability and respect for the Constitution. The speaker levels direct accusations of manipulation and ignores the opponent's attempts to steer the conversation off-topic.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and legalistic, relying on logical arguments and the precise citation of legal provisions. The tone is critical and demanding, particularly aimed at the government due to the absence of constitutional analysis, and sharply antagonistic towards the social democrats. The author uses examples (speeding, camera networks) to illustrate fundamental dilemmas between the effectiveness of law enforcement and citizens' rights.