By Plenary Sessions: Mart Maastik

The style is sharp, skeptical, and confrontational, employing strong emotional judgments such as "utter nonsense" and "pure business." Emphasis is placed on appealing to logic and common sense, contrasting this with the "intimidation" of presenters and their alleged lack of knowledge. The speaker repeatedly poses fact-based questions to challenge the opponents' expertise and briefly defends himself against a journalist's criticism regarding the clarity of the questions.

The tone is largely critical and at times emotional, conveying embarrassment and dread regarding the government's actions. The text employs sarcasm and ironic analogies (such as "Brezhnev's package," "Lego blocks," and "Orwellian ministries") alongside absurd hypotheticals (like granting a dental qualification) to mock political decisions. The speaker repeatedly urges a return to statesmanship and common sense.

The style is formal and analytical, concentrating on the dissection of the draft bill's technical details and the logical ramifications of the proposed amendments. A rhetorical question is employed to challenge the government's actions, coupled with the expression of a personal opinion concerning the senselessness of the name change.

The rhetorical style is critical, sharp, and often confrontational, especially when addressing the Prime Minister. Strong and emotional expressions are employed, such as "catastrophe," "political hacks," and "shamelessly," to underscore the gravity of the government's actions. The appeals are a blend of economic logic (poor timing for raising taxes) and political condemnation (a lack of mandate for the tax hikes).

The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and urgent, employing strong metaphors (e.g., "it is better to fish in murky waters," "NGO Hunger and Debt"). Cultural references ("Nukitsamees") are also used to enhance emotional impact. The appeals are balanced, containing both logical criticism regarding economic competitiveness and passionate condemnation of the government's actions.

The rhetorical style is formal and direct, respectfully addressing the presiding officer. It focuses on the logical and procedural framing of the issue, requiring a clear legal or practical explanation regarding the conduct of the session. Emotional appeals are absent; the emphasis is placed on factual clarity.

The rhetorical style is critical and analytical, employing logical arguments concerning administrative logic and costs. Figurative expressions (e.g., "a dragging name," "a strange monstrosity") and powerful analogies (Brownian motion) are utilized to underscore the inherent disorder of constant restructuring. The speaker poses pointed questions and casts doubt on the presenter's assertions, particularly regarding the avoidance of ghettoization.

The rhetorical style is questioning and argumentative, employing rhetorical questions concerning both the tax burden and social policy. To illustrate the economic critique, a cultural reference (a quote from Tammsaare) is used to highlight the link between work, toil, and love. The tone is formal, yet direct and challenging.

The address is formal ("Mr. Chairman," "esteemed rapporteur"), but the tone is sharp and accusatory. A rhetorical question is employed to highlight concern regarding the committee's failure to discuss crucial aspects. The style leans toward the logical and procedural, rather than the emotional.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and confrontational, employing loaded phrases such as "whipping up climate hysteria." The speaker relies on both emotional appeal (electricity prices have skyrocketed) and specific data (CO2 percentages, voltage). The address is framed as a direct and demanding question put to the Prime Minister.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and pessimistic, employing powerful metaphors to describe the economic situation ("winter has arrived," "left out in the cold"). The text utilizes both logical arguments (cost and defense considerations) and sarcastic hyperbole, suggesting a hidden government plan to concentrate life in major cities. The speaker poses numerous questions that challenge the government's priorities and promises.

The rhetorical style is concerned and persuasive, emphasizing the regional and human dimension of the policy, warning that centralization "will completely kill life in peripheral regions." It uses many concrete, localized examples (the fate of the manor complex, queues for CT scans) and appeals to logic, warning against repeating the same mistake in excise policy ("we are stepping on the same rake twice").