By Plenary Sessions: Mart Maastik

The rhetorical style is direct, critical, and urgent, emphasizing the need for accelerated legislative action. The speaker uses questions to challenge the speed of the government’s actions, demanding a concrete, concise, and impactful plan. The appeal is a blend of procedural logic and security-related emotion (war, aggressor state).

The style is formal and direct, addressing both the Presiding Officer and the Minister. A sharp rhetorical question ("Do you consider this right?") is employed to underscore the logical flaws and inconsistencies within the government's policy. The tone is critical and challenging.

The rhetorical style is sharp and critical, employing specific case examples (people in masks, automatic weapons) as an emotional appeal to underscore the disproportionality. The address is framed as a question directed to the Minister of Justice, yet it contains a powerful accusation regarding injustice and double standards. The tone remains formal, but the content is dramatic and confrontational.

The style is confrontational and forceful, starting with a demand for order due to the noise. The argumentation is highly emotional, using a rhetorical question to equate the falling birth rate with "a war against one's own people." The speaker demands attention and seriousness.

The style is investigative and critical, posing sharp questions to the minister regarding deficiencies in the work of the prosecutor's office and alleged interference. Contrasting examples are used (minor investigations versus Slava Ukraini), and reference is made to information obtained via the press and recent personal meetings. The tone is formal but suspicious in substance, hinting at potential "horse-trading."

The style is formal, but the tone is predominantly critical and urgent, particularly regarding the issue of national survival, where existential warnings are employed ("We are dying out as a state"). The appeals constitute a blend of logical argumentation (budget constraints, construction costs) and emotional pressure (the preamble to the constitution).

The rhetorical style is direct, critical, and question-oriented, utilizing strong expressions (e.g., "screwed up," "tossed in the trash"). The speaker relies on logical and fact-based appeals, referencing specific costs and statistics to challenge the opposing side's claims regarding cheap energy. The tone is rather combative and suspicious.

The style is direct, confrontational, and insistent, leveling sharp criticism against the narrative presented by the prime minister and the government ("That is not true," "There is no point in fudging the issue"). Logical analogies (journalism, tourism) are employed to illustrate the position, alongside emotionally charged phrases ("God's blessing," "to fatten up") to intensify the critique.