By Plenary Sessions: Arvo Aller

The rhetorical style is combative, accusatory, and urgent, emphasizing an emotional appeal concerning the welfare of the people and the government's negligence. Sharp political accusations are employed, such as the finance minister engaging in the implementation of Putin's propaganda. The speech is direct and strongly contrasts the government's actions with the vital needs of the populace.

The rhetorical style is critical, frank, and forceful, particularly regarding the government's inaction in addressing root causes. Both logical arguments (citing laws and statistics) and an emotional warning about the replacement of the Estonian people and the overburdening of social services are utilized. The speaker directly addresses the presiding officer of the session, the Prime Minister, and the wider observing public.

The rhetorical style is analytical and formal, focusing on requesting details and challenging the fundamental principles of the drafts. Both logical appeals, historical comparisons (milk quotas), and statistical facts (gender underrepresentation) are utilized. The tone is predominantly skeptical and procedural, but also includes sharp remarks directed at opponents, for example, criticizing the "mud-slinging" concerning the American president.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and demanding, expressing strong regret and indignation (e.g., regarding the prosecutor's claims). Specific and emotionally charged case examples (rape, the theft of 6 million euros) are used to support the logical arguments. The tone is formal but direct, focusing on the absence of accountability and justice.

The rhetorical style is suspicious, insistent, and confrontational, focusing on calling into question the minister's motives and the use of an accelerated procedure. Strong expressions like "cunning trick" are employed, and parallels are drawn with other unpopular decisions (such as the closure of rural schools). The speaker presents their views resolutely and makes direct negative predictions about the consequences of the law.

The rhetorical style is critical and direct, specifically accusing the ministers of constantly passing the buck on the issue. Rhetorical questions are used to emphasize the illogical nature and ineffectiveness of the government's actions. The overall tone remains formal (given the plenary session setting), but it is laced with sharp criticism.

The rhetoric is critical and challenging, particularly aimed at the government, highlighting their failures regarding tax increases. Simultaneously, a conditional "helping hand" cooperation is offered concerning the issue of lowering taxes. The style is logical and policy-centric, employing direct accusations ("wrong decisions") and clarifying questions concerning solidarity.

The style is formal and respectful ("Thank you, good chairman of the session! Esteemed Minister!"), but the substance is sharply interrogative and challenging. The speaker uses the minister's own terminology ("revenue minister") as a counter-argument to highlight the ambiguity of the financial strategy. The emphasis is on framing the question logically and factually.

The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and insistent, utilizing emotional appeals to highlight the difficulties of rural life ("the potholes are knee-deep"). The speaker contrasts the government's rhetoric of e-solutions with harsh real-world problems (expensive communication costs, inefficient public transportation), thereby calling into question the minister's rationality and understanding of rural life.