By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The rhetorical style is highly confrontational and aggressive, utilizing sarcasm ("propaganda show") and dramatic hypothetical escalation (police rapid responders with dogs). The speaker focuses on undermining the opponents' credibility, presenting evidence (an audio recording) and demanding an apology. The tone is predominantly accusatory and demanding, rather than conciliatory.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, highlighting injustice and legal violations, and employing irony ("Surprise, surprise"). The speaker utilizes logical arguments, drawing on specific financial data and legal precedents, and frames their positions within a strong value-based structure (e.g., the issue of justice). They also use real-life analogies (like the police taking a bag away on the street) to illustrate their arguments.

The rhetorical style is sharp and combative, employing heavily loaded words like "robbery" and "plunder" to emphasize the seriousness and injustice of the situation. Both logical arguments (profit figures) and moral appeal are used, quoting Upton Sinclair to discredit the opposing side's salaried analysts, whose understanding is dependent on their salary.

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, accusatory, and blunt, employing strong emotional language ("shameful," "vulgar lying"). The speaker blends factual data (UK statistics) and logical reasoning (the unconvincing nature of the police investigation) with direct personal attacks aimed at opponents. He demands accountability and an apology, particularly regarding the accusations directed at Jürgen Ligi.

The rhetorical style is sharp, exacting, and persistent, focusing on exposing the contradictions and lack of clarity on the opposing side. The speaker employs logical appeals, directly citing the Chancellor of Justice and various media sources to bolster their arguments. The tone is often one of frustration, stemming from the government's ambiguous responses and the trivialization of the questions asked, specifically referencing the government's accusation that opposition members of parliament are "stupid and nagging."

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and confrontational, employing strong emotional terms like "anti-family" and "absurd." The speaker focuses on calling the opposing side's motives into question, accusing them of pursuing an ideological agenda and of dishonesty in the explanatory memorandum. He/She reframes the bill's purpose from "facilitation" to "coercion," relying on the logical question of why legislation is being used to fundamentally reshape family models.

The rhetorical style is critical and analytical, frequently employing rhetorical questions to underscore the bill's deficiencies and the associated risks. The tone is formal and calls for comprehensive explanations, particularly concerning the coalition's failure to submit the requisite amendments.

The style is rigorous and sharply critical, highlighting the absence of transparency and accountability. The speaker employs logical arguments and emotional appeals (e.g., "the people are the master," "serious concern"), repeatedly posing questions that he believes have gone unanswered. He uses analogies (the Nursipalu process, the roles of a company's management board and supervisory council) to underscore the weight of his arguments.

The style is interrogative, informative, and logical, focusing on facts and historical context. The speaker stresses that the questions raised are important to the public ("many people would be interested to know this"), positioning themselves as an intermediary between the people and the government. The tone is formal and demanding, presenting direct financial questions to the minister.