By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

Emphasizes a calm, cooperative, and formal tone; uses clear references to previous discussions, and is willing to consider compromises.

It employs an inquiry-based, questionnaire, and propositional approach, alongside a data- and example-driven methodology. The rhetoric is distinctly fact-based, and arguments are structured numerically; hypothetical questions are posed to the audience (“are you ready…”) to encourage better consideration of the alternatives presented. The tone is formally critical, yet not angry, and is directed at specific politicians and decisions.

A multitude of questions and a dialogical tone, exemplified by: “do you agree with me?” This is coupled with an emphasis on the principles of free elections. The tone is official, informative, and slightly concerned, employing both fact-based and ethical argumentation. The text successfully balances emotion (through moral highlighting) and logical evidence.

The rhetoric is critical and coalition-based; it employs strong emotional language (e.g., "anti-people government," "hypocrisy") and engages the audience through questions. The structure is question-and-answer, and the arguments are supported by data and examples, while remaining polemical and seeking to involve all parties in the discussion.

A tone focused on questions and clarifications, directly critical and demanding. It utilizes comparisons and references to previous incidents, which provides a justification for raising specific topics and highlighting the necessity of fulfilling prior commitments. A formal and discursive presentation style.

The speech is combative and inflammatory in tone, often featuring rhetorical questions, sarcasm, and expressions of indignation. It is a combination of rigid criticism and emotional, moralistic rhetoric; the speaker employs language that devalues symbols of competence, such as amateurish points (or 'noob punditry') and citing examples from the “Excel spreadsheet.”

The tone is formal and discursive, yet simultaneously critical of the motor vehicle tax; questions are employed to stimulate discussion and raise potential legal ramifications. The discourse merges emotional notes (the significant impact on families) with fact-based, jurisprudential argumentation, seeking to reinforce its position using legal documentation.

This is a speech style that is largely combative and requires quick reaction. The tone is urgent, accusatory, and emotional, but at the same time structured and features a logical enumeration; it uses repetition, questions, and concrete examples (the situation of families, people with disabilities, rural areas). The core themes are elevated and aesthetically rich, yet at the same time direct and firm regarding controversial causes.

The focus is formal, question-based, and data-driven; it utilizes specific examples and figures, and raises questions regarding risk analysis and the thorough consideration of decisions. The tone is critical, but not hostile, centering on logical reasoning and demanding scrutiny.

The tone is respectful, inquisitive, and measured; it uses questions to steer the discussion toward concrete actions.