By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

Critical, relying on anchor points, and often ecologically minded; uses examples, repeats questions and accusations, often blunt and straightforward, yet emotionally powerful, but at the same time based on facts.

Beginning with a formal and grateful tone; utilizing questions and a dialogic approach, emphasizing substantive contribution and traversing the legal and administrative everyday through foundational narratives. A textile-argumentative and vibrant fact-based style, combining emotion and analytical deduction.

Speeches are characterized by a combative and direct tone, closely relying on facts and legal arguments. It utilizes emotional speech (trust in state institutions, the protection of the rule of law) and presents rhetorical questions (e.g., "Do you know where this is done?") to increase persuasiveness. Overall, the style is formal, but solid and critical due to the emotions and moral foundation.

The speaker is primarily combative and in a direct style; uses rhetorical questions directed at the listener, accusatory language, and argues with a critical tone. The texts contain sarcasm and a rapid flow of emotion, but are based on facts and figures.

The tone is critical and worried, yet maintains a formal and calm speaking style; it uses emotional examples (bottles in the hall and a Bali vacation) and poses rhetorical questions to elicit response and attention.

The emphasis is on an analytical and questioning tone; it uses question forms and references to previous discussions to scrutinize the government's justifications. It works with data and examples and is critical, but not emotionally fiery or aggressive. The text is formal, yet presents more complex thoughts clearly and in a comprehensible manner.

Speaks formally, uses fact-based claims, and poses detailed questions seeking clear answers. Handles criticism with a strong tone and employs analytical thinking, combining emotional and reasoned arguments.

Toon is formal and weighty; the speaker uses a direct, argument-based approach focused on questions, and attempts to present explanations and data. Critical, but not personal; it emphasizes evidence and the necessity for better processes without emotional attacks.