By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

Toni is resolutely critical and emotional, employing moral concepts such as “the sanctity of home,” and posing questions that fuel a vigorous and compelling discussion. The text is strongly argumentative, often framed by a narrative and value-based structure.

Hard-hitting and accusatory language is frequently employed, and the tone is both combative and accusatory. Direct address and rhetorical questions are used to highlight behavior that lacks accountability and transparency. The message is emotional, yet it relies more on critical argument than constructive reasoning.

Numerous emotional and critical appeals; utilizes rhetorical questions and moral references; the tone is directly accusatory and agitating.

Enhanced, fact-based rhetoric that incorporates questioning; utilizes the parliamentary formula, "Thank you! Esteemed Minister!" and presents controversial questions once during the speaking period. The tone is critical, but not aggressive; it combines an emotional backdrop (a comparison with the rising cost of living) and logical argumentation.

The discourse is highly critical and profoundly analytical, consistently employing negative assessments regarding redundancy and administrative burden. Rhetorical questions are posed (e.g., what proportion of notifications falls upon small businesses, or how much time is spent calling schools), which reinforce the argument concerning the absence of added value. The text is lengthy and formal in its presentation, yet the fact-based assertions and accusations leveled against the coalition inevitably induce weariness.

Emphatically critical and provocative, combining emotional urgency with a fact-based argument. It utilizes direct questions and juxtaposes statistics and reports to highlight the absence of solutions and the necessity of answers that require cooperation.

The tone is formal, respectful, and question-driven. Clear questions are utilized to guide the discussion and assess the impact of the proposed drafts. The emotional element is restrained, logical, and grounded in facts.

It handles the matter calmly and formally, primarily using questions and references to institutions (the Chancellor of Justice, the minister). The first speech adopts an inquisitive and inclusive tone for exploring the problem; the second speech is analytical and fact-based, emphasizing constitutionality. Overall, it maintains a balance between emotion and fact; the discourse is not rhetorically extreme or overly radical.

The speaking style is primarily argumentative and critical, often elliptical or incomplete, and heavily reliant on questions. The speeches utilize a strongly dominant core theme (e.g., legal certainty, impact assessment, "copy-paste" from EU directives), and the content contained many concerns and warnings regarding bureaucracy and administrative burden. The texts themselves are generally argumentative, characterized by long paragraphs, and frequently include rhetorical questions and critical remarks concerning the directions taken by commissions and the government.

The rhetorical tone is harsh and emotionally charged: it employs direct questions and moral judgments (“who exactly are you planning to fine?”; “immoral, cynical”) and undermines the legitimacy of both the process and the results. This is a combination of emotional defense and logical argumentation, often referencing specific figures and scrutinizing the government's actions.

A critical and combative tone; uses rhetorical questions, an anecdote (the Ossinovski case), and legal references; emotional, but primarily argumentative, emphasizing moral and constitutional principles; the style is largely aggressive in its criticism of the opposition.

A critical and inquisitive tone, often involving direct questions aimed at the minister. It employs a strong emphasis on accountability and focuses on fact-based discussion, all while maintaining an official and formal style.

The emphasis is decisively critical and challenging; it utilizes rhetorical questions and concrete examples, stressing statesmanship and respectful dialogue. The text is formal in structure but includes personal references, highlighting practical and legal arguments.