By Plenary Sessions: Lauri Laats

The rhetoric is primarily critical and question-driven, combined with fact-based referencing. It employs a clear and decisive tone, sometimes appealing and empathetically defending religious freedom, but simultaneously stresses the importance of public accountability and cooperation. The texts feature both direct questions and informal acknowledgments, which provide the speaker with a platform that is both forceful and nuanced.

The emphasis is decisive and critical, often raising questions and referencing data. A formal register is employed, along with references to the transcript; the tone is anxious and pressured, yet constructive.

The tone is critical, yet simultaneously collaborative: he uses moral arguments and appeals directed at colleagues, and in the rhetoric emphasizes an approach based on solidarity. A verbose, yet fact-driven rhetoric emerges, utilizing inquiries and drawing clear conclusions regarding the government's tax policy. Both emotional and rational discourse are highlighted, combining arguments with facts and ethical discussions.

A serious, formal tone focused on core messages; utilizes both emotional examples (such as life in rural areas and the necessity of car ownership/transportation needs) and fact-based argumentation. Questions are frequently posed to the minister, emphasizing dialogue and cooperation, while striving to keep the discussion within a constructive and respectable format.

The speeches are primarily aimed at disputes and carry a combative tone, with the opposition being both harshly critical and somewhat inviting compromise. The emphasis is heavily data- and number-driven: figures concerning the share of VAT, GDP, and budget revenue forecasts are cited, and alongside this, historical context and emotional stories are occasionally used to reinforce positions. The speeches adhere to the formal parliamentary address format, often referencing draft legislation and the budget, and utilizing questions and direct requests to steer the debate. The emphasis is both pragmatic and moral: some speeches highlight the economic impact and criticize those who oppose taxes, while others bring up the lives of ordinary people (support for pensioners, funding for care homes) and call on legislators to act appropriately.

Conveyed with a strong and somewhat combative tone, it combines emotional rhetoric with facts and figures; it uses questions and examples (such as Russian speeches and identification problems) and makes direct appeals to ministers; while the format is official, the style is often cuttingly blunt.

Rhetorically critical and decisive, often under the control of emotion but primarily supported by logical argument. It employs questions, examples, and factual references to highlight contradictions and the impact on citizens. Formal in style, somewhat inflammatory in expression, yet disciplined in its reasoning.

A targeted, contentious, and strongly critical tone; it utilizes direct judgments such as "blunder" and "omnibus bill," emphasizes the inconvenient and potentially harmful impact, and presents a strong tone of persuasion and admonishment; it combines the highlighting of facts and moral significance.

The discussion is formal, question-driven, and analytical; it utilizes specific examples and references to previous discussions to strengthen the evidentiary basis. The tone is critical, but not aggressive, and the emphasis remains on highlighting both problems and solutions.

An analytical and fact-based tone; it uses specific figures to support its claims. It includes the rhetorical question, "Is the company too greedy?" which adds a critical and scrutinizing dimension. The official, slightly formal style of address and references to ministerial positions lend the speech political resonance.