By Plenary Sessions: Vladimir Arhipov

The speaking style is polite and constructive, utilizing the formal address "Esteemed Minister." The rhetoric is more inquisitive than assertive, focusing on a specific question concerning the Minister's stance. The tone is neutral and diplomatic.

Uses a direct and demanding tone, emphasizing public concern and the right to know. It concludes with the emotional appeal, "The people of Estonia are listening," which demonstrates an attempt to connect with the electorate. The questions are presented in a structured and consistent manner, demanding concrete answers.

The speaker employs confrontational and emotional rhetoric, accusing the government of "fibbing" and outright "lying." The language is direct and accusatory, utilizing evocative phrases like "a heavy blow," "the back door," and "a weak spine." Rhetorical questions are posed to emphasize the government's contradictions and perceived injustice.

Employs a direct and practical approach, posing specific questions without excessive emotion. Relies on expert opinion ("every serviceman and railway worker says") to validate their arguments. Maintains a polite-formal tone, using standard forms of address ("Esteemed Prime Minister," "Dear Chairman").

The approach employed is factual and problem-focused, with the question presented in a structured manner. The tone is formal and constructive, concentrating on the search for practical solutions. It highlights the specific consequences for children who are left without the required support.

The tone of the speech is emotional and combative, drawing strong parallels with the Soviet era and warning against an anti-Christian campaign. The style blends legal arguments with emotional appeals, utilizing rhetorical questions and dramatic analogies. The address is solemn and speaks directly to "the Estonian people."

It employs an emotional and empathetic approach, highlighting specific real-life dilemmas. The rhetoric is impactful and human-centric, utilizing visual examples (yellow and red stickers in the store) to illustrate the situation. The tone is concerned and demanding, yet remains respectful toward the minister.

The rhetoric is polite yet critical, employing standard parliamentary forms of address ("respected rapporteur"). The speaker employs logical arguments, drawing upon economic consequences and democratic principles. The style is fact-based yet emotionally charged, particularly on the energy issue, where the impact on "every person living in Estonia" is highlighted.

The approach is emotional and personal, emphasizing specific examples (such as a solitary pensioner forced to choose between medication and food). The rhetoric is passionate and morally charged, employing questions and direct appeals aimed at the minister. It combines fact-based arguments with powerful emotional appeals, concluding with a call for moral responsibility.

A formal and polite tone is used, commencing with a traditional expression of gratitude. The style of discourse is constructive and fact-based, focusing on specific issues without emotional evaluations.

An emotional and dramatic style, utilizing direct address to the audience ("Good people who are watching us!"). It emphasizes themes of human dignity and justice, utilizing rhetorical questions and personal stories regarding the situation of pensioners. It combines fact-based arguments with emotional appeals, particularly when discussing vulnerable social groups.

The tone is factual and accusatory, beginning politely ("Thank you, esteemed Chairman! Good Minister!") before transitioning into a critical analysis. The speech is structured logically, starting with a description of the problem, followed by accusations, and concluding with a specific question. Emotional leverage is employed by stressing the importance of food security.

Employs a questioning format to present criticism and demand answers from the minister. The style is polite but decidedly more critical, emphasizing the necessity of a "dignified old age" using emotionally impactful phrasing.

It employs an emotionally resonant yet matter-of-fact tone, citing real-life examples of the struggles pensioners face in affording a trip to a cafe and the decline of local communities. The rhetoric is direct and critical, utilizing evocative phrases such as "word analysis makes my blood boil." It combines personal experience with fact-based arguments, thereby creating a credible and compelling narrative.