By Plenary Sessions: Rene Kokk

The rhetorical style is critical and questioning, focusing on the contradictions between the prevailing narrative and the actions of the state. Both logical arguments (such as data limitations and pollution hazards) and emotional appeals (the harm inflicted upon young people) are utilized, while favoring a calmer, less aggressive communication approach.

The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and sharp, employing emotional expressions such as "outrageous" and expressing hope that the coalition will find its "backbone." Numerous rhetorical questions are used to cast doubt on the opposing side's optimism regarding the loyalty of gray passport holders. Emphasis is placed on the logical appeal to the principle of quality legislation: if something is to be done, it must be done well.

The style is combative, critical, and emotionally charged, employing strong moral appeals (such as the issue of pedophilia). The speaker characterizes the situation as an "upside-down world," offering a rapid enumeration of the government's contradictory and detrimental actions. The speech concludes with a rhetorical question addressed to a colleague.

The rhetorical style is direct and critical, focusing on procedural issues and the low work morale among colleagues. Sharp rhetorical questions are employed to highlight the lack of transparency and to suggest a potential desire for concealment regarding major projects. The overall tone is demanding and expresses concern regarding the work efficiency of the Riigikogu.

The style is combative, insistent, and sarcastic, calling the presenter the "face of the car tax campaign" and undoubtedly an "expert." The speaker uses a populist appeal, emphasizing that the answers are important to "a whole host of Estonian car owners, Estonian families" who are following the debate.

The style is overwhelmingly confrontational and critical, particularly when addressing the prime minister, accusing them of "spin-doctoring" and demanding the precise verification of facts. Both logical arguments (the contradictory logic concerning taxes, budget comparisons) and emotional appeals (the school's 105th anniversary, the specific needs of SEN students) are utilized. The tone is urgent and accusatory, referencing the process's "tunnel vision" and a "condescending" attitude.

The rhetorical style is critical and insistent, employing the metaphor of "tunnel vision" to characterize the government's actions. The appeal focuses both on regional significance and the logic of offloading financial burdens onto local municipalities. The tone is formal yet demanding, presenting the minister with a direct question regarding their presence and official position.