By Plenary Sessions: Arvo Aller

The speaker's rhetorical style is critical and combative, emphasizing the rottenness of the situation and the government's deliberate policy. Logical arguments are used, supported by concrete political examples (the car tax, PRIA bureaucracy, the postponement of subsidies). The tone is urgent, demanding solutions instead of addressing the consequences.

The rhetorical style is critical and demanding, employing sarcasm ("Well, great job!") and posing sharp questions to demand accountability. The speech is fact-based, focusing on specific times and the disregard for notification procedures. The tone is confrontational and emphasizes the government's inability to inform the members of the Riigikogu in a timely manner.

Insufficient information.

The speaker’s rhetorical style is critical, straightforward, and at times combative, particularly when addressing government inaction and tax policy. They employ strong logical arguments (for example, the land tax increases production costs) alongside emotional appeals (highlighting the difficult situation of farmers and the quality of the harvest). Specific examples and references to local events and journalism (Virumaa Teataja) are utilized.

The tone is confrontational and critical, containing direct accusations of spreading misinformation and demonstrating diplomatic incompetence. Emotional expressions are used, such as ("spinning one's wheels," "a huge stack of paper"), and the style is detailed and highly argumentative, especially when dissecting the dangers of the draft legislation. The speeches are repetitive and emphasize strong opposition.

The rhetorical style is direct, interrogative, and critical, employing a powerful metaphor ("the pantry is empty") to describe the resource deficit. The speaker balances an emotional defense of the local residents (Nursipalu) with a logical demand for accountability. The text includes an accusation regarding the "labeling" or "marking" of people, which adds a sharp edge to the overall tone.

The style is professional, concerned, and well-reasoned, focusing on the logical consequences that regulatory changes entail (e.g., difficulties in planning plant protection activities). Formal parliamentary language is used, and direct questions are posed to the minister to obtain feedback and clarification regarding the decisions that have been made.

The style is formal and professional, beginning with the address "respected session chair" and "dear colleagues." The tone is critical and demanding, particularly regarding the shortcomings in the government's activities and political culture. The arguments presented are mainly logical and fact-based, framing the inquiries as a list of specific questions.