By Plenary Sessions: Lauri Läänemets

The style is analytical, critical, and incisive, focusing on logical arguments and refuting mathematical errors (e.g., calculations for the 2.6 billion euro fee). The speaker uses direct addresses and accusations (e.g., "Urmas, what are you talking about here?") to emphasize the economic cost of the government's inaction.

The rhetorical style is critical and concerned, emphasizing difficult times and impending financial hardship. Contrasting references are employed, differentiating the current minister from his predecessors, and direct, challenging questions are posed regarding the hope for a salary increase. The tone is formal, yet demanding in its substance.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and penetrating, employing emotional appeals (e.g., the loss of security for the average family) alongside a logical analysis of consequences. The speaker uses direct questions aimed at the Prime Minister, which challenge the government's priorities and economic policy goals. The tone is formal (given the setting of the session) but confrontational in substance.

The rhetorical style is critical, insistent, and directly interrogative, aimed at the minister's responsibility for sound legislation. Both logical arguments (the lack of loan security) and emotional appeals (the maintenance of children) are utilized. The address is formal but includes sharp condemnation for allowing the bill to pass.

The rhetorical style is serious, insistent, and persuasive, repeatedly emphasizing that the positions presented are "facts." It employs both logical arguments (adherence to the constitution and law) and moral appeals, criticizing Patriarch Kirill's actions as "false doctrine" that justifies violence. The discourse is formal and focuses on justifying policy through the lens of security.

The rhetorical style is combative and anxious, utilizing powerful emotional examples (a mother with two children on sick leave) and contrasting the insecurity faced by workers with the guaranteed salaries of ministers. Rhetorical questions and a provocative analogy (reducing government salaries) are employed to underscore the injustice of the draft bill. The tone is formal, yet it includes sharp accusations regarding the lack of consultation.