By Plenary Sessions: Evelin Poolamets

The rhetorical style is formal, neutral, and explanatory, focusing on the logical presentation of the goals and expected outcomes of the proposals. The tone is factual and informative, avoiding emotional appeals. Addresses are brief and focus on the economic justification of the legislative bills.

The speaker's style is formal, polite, and interrogative, utilizing standard forms of address ("respected Chairman of the Session," "dear Prime Minister"). The emphasis is on framing the question logically and based on details, presenting both factual inquiries and ethical considerations. Emotional appeals are not used; the focus remains on requesting information and viewpoints.

The rhetorical style is critical and forceful, combining logical arguments (inflation, loan interest rates) with emotional appeals (the hardships faced by pensioners). Figurative and cautionary language is employed to underscore the consequences of shoddy renovation work, labeling them "mushroom farms" and "green mold."

The rhetorical style is very brief, formal, and factual. The speaker uses standard forms of address ("Esteemed Chairman of the Session," "Dear colleagues") and focuses on the logical appeal, explaining the purpose and content of the draft law without emotional embellishment.

The rhetorical style is skeptical, aggressive, and combative, employing strong accusations and rhetorical questions. Sharp and emotional language is used (e.g., "circus," "hypocritical"), along with references to the "Stark-Logistics Government" to emphasize hidden business interests and the true objective of the bill. The argumentation relies on both procedural deficiencies and logical objections (e.g., transporting water to Viimsi just to water the grass).

The speaker's style is formal and direct, employing standard forms of address ("Thank you, respected Chair of the session!"). Sharp and provocative questions are utilized, aimed at exposing the weak points of the government's policy, particularly concerning morality and national security. The questions tend to incorporate logical and ethical appeals.

The style is formal and interrogative, respectfully addressing the presiding officer and the presenter. The speaker utilizes questions to highlight the system's deficiencies and the lack of awareness among citizens. The rhetoric balances personal experience ("As a mother, I know") with logical argumentation on the topic of gender inequality.

The rhetorical style is formal and direct, employing sharp and accusatory language when addressing matters of value. The government's actions are heavily criticized, using phrases such as "completely unacceptable," "dividing society," and "forcing [measures] through using strong-arm tactics." The argumentation relies on both procedural sources (the long waiting time for the inquiry) and legal sources (a reference to the European Court of Human Rights).