By Plenary Sessions: Aivar Kokk

The speaker employs emotional and confrontational rhetoric, combining it with fact-based arguments. The style is direct and accusatory ("the government is going to break its promise," "moral"), utilizing rhetorical questions and personal addresses directed at the minister. The tone is passionate and critical, highlighting the government's contradictions.

He/She employs a fact-based and pragmatic approach, relying on specific figures and historical examples. The rhetoric is straightforward and critical, particularly when addressing previous political decisions. He/She balances technical explanations with practical examples, such as the effect of cold winter days on energy demand.

The speaking style is hesitant and inquisitive, characterized by frequent rhetorical questions ("Is this really equal treatment?"). The speaker relies on concrete examples and personal memories, including anecdotes drawn from the Jõgeva pub and a local care home. The tone is moderately critical yet constructive, aiming to find solutions to the issues raised.

The approach used is direct and question-centric, starting with specific figures and facts. The rhetoric is critical yet courteous, utilizing formal address such as "good minister." Real-life examples are introduced (e.g., questions asked on the street, visiting the embassy), and persistent questions are posed to elicit answers. The overall style is practical and fact-driven.

It employs the tactic of asking questions and specific examples (Vana Baskini Teater, Improteater) to bolster its argument. The rhetoric is direct and fact-based, highlighting the contradiction between low ticket prices and significant state funding in the case of certain theaters.

They employ a diplomatic yet determined approach, starting with positive remarks before posing critical questions. They rely on facts and concrete examples, utilizing rhetorical questions and personal experiences to illustrate their arguments. Politeness is maintained, but clear disappointment is expressed regarding the insufficient oversight.

They use direct and emotional rhetoric, combining fact-based arguments with personal experience. The tone is often critical and ironic, exemplified by phrases like ("we're going nowhere," "we're just talking hot air"). They pose numerous rhetorical questions and demand concrete answers, frequently employing phrases such as "I haven't heard anything today" to underscore the lack of response.

The speaker employs emotional and confrontational rhetoric, accusing the government of "lying" and utilizing the "steamroller method." While relying heavily on numerical arguments and concrete examples, these points are presented in the form of sharp criticism. Colloquial expressions such as "car tax" and "steamroller" are used to make the message more accessible.