By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The rhetorical style is confrontational and critical, focusing on exposing the opposing side's alleged conceptual contradiction regarding tax policy. Strong rhetorical questions are employed ("Do you think gambling is some kind of positive phenomenon?") to call the opponent's values into question. The tone is ironic and accusatory, referencing the opponents' previous support for raising taxes.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, combative, and insistent, employing strong phrases such as "mocking the people" and "the elephant in the room." The speaker relies on logical arguments, constitutional references, and statistics (e.g., government support at 14.5%) to underscore the disregard for the democratic ideal. He uses comparisons with neighboring countries (Finland, Lithuania, Poland) to bolster his arguments.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and alarming, emphasizing how disturbing the incident is and the threat it poses to national unity. The speaker employs strong value-based appeals, accusing the minister of washing their hands of the matter and contributing to the erosion of the sense of national cohesion. The tone is formal yet emotionally charged, referencing, for instance, the diminishing value placed on having large families.

The rhetorical style is sharp, cautionary, and urgent, employing powerful metaphors (e.g., "the great prison camp") to underscore the threat of losing freedom. It combines procedural criticism (retroactive legislation) with value-based, alarming scenarios, highlighting a "step-by-step" progression toward the erosion of privacy. The speaker also utilizes rhetorical questions to challenge the arguments put forth by opponents.

The rhetorical style is urgent, serious, and confrontational, emphasizing the gravity of the crisis, which paves the way for a "demographic catastrophe." The speaker balances logical argumentation (statistics) and emotional appeal (the preservation of the nation), using direct rhetorical questions to highlight the government's inaction.

The rhetorical style is critical, substantive, and demanding, starting with a critique of the tone used against personal attacks. The speaker employs direct and accusatory rhetorical questions to challenge the finance minister's political and moral accountability. The argumentation is strongly logical and fact-based, focusing on fiscal sustainability and control.