By Plenary Sessions: Vladimir Arhipov

Uses a moderate and constructive tone, emphasizing cooperation and pragmatism. Balances emotional appeals ("the security of all of us") with fact-based arguments. The speaking style is formal yet accessible, utilizing clear examples and logical conclusions. Speeches are concluded with words of thanks, demonstrating courtesy and respect.

Employs a question-based approach, presenting direct challenges to the minister. The rhetoric is fact-based, yet simultaneously critical and highly pressurizing. The tone is polite but firm, utilizing formal addresses such as "esteemed Minister" combined with sharp questions. It emphasizes the contradictions between the government's claims and the actual reality.

An emotional and combative rhetorical style that combines personal investment with fact-based arguments. It frequently employs rhetorical questions and direct addresses ("Where are we headed if we continue like this?", "Is this fair?"). The tone is passionate and accusatory, particularly when criticizing the legal system and the government. Speeches often conclude with an emotional appeal or a warning.

The speaker employs emotional and persuasive rhetoric, particularly when addressing constitutional matters, often appealing directly to the "good people of Estonia." They frequently pose rhetorical questions to undercut opponents' viewpoints and utilize dramatic language ("a very slippery slope," "undermining/subversion"). This criticism is balanced by constructive proposals, especially in relation to the state of emergency law.

The tone used is direct and critical. They start speeches politely with "Thank you, esteemed chairman/minister," but quickly transition to specific issues. They pose sharp questions and employ irony ("You are currently the champion in this regard"). They rely on facts and concrete examples, rather than emotional appeals.

Uses a direct and practical approach, often starting questions with the phrase, "Did I understand correctly?" Highlights specific examples (half a year in a queue, seeing a private doctor tomorrow) and uses colloquial language ("let's come back down to earth," "how to untangle this mess"). Balances critical questions with constructive proposals.

The speaking style is direct and critical, yet polite, starting with a traditional greeting. They use rhetorical questions and concrete examples to substantiate their positions. The tone is demanding but not aggressive, focusing on facts and logical arguments. Technical issues (such as the microphone cutting out) are also noted, which demonstrates a pragmatic approach.

Uses a polite yet direct approach, initiating conversations with traditional courtesy phrases and references to colleagues. Questions are presented in a structured and logical manner, combining facts and figures with emotional concerns. The tone of voice is moderate but firm, and aggressiveness is avoided.

Uses a constructive and collaborative tone. Expresses disappointment calmly and professionally, focusing on solving the problem rather than assigning blame. The delivery is direct and practically focused.