By Plenary Sessions: Evelin Poolamets

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, employing direct and pointed questions when addressing the minister. The tone is procedural and logical, concentrating on the absence of facts and methodology underpinning the draft legislation, while strictly avoiding emotional appeals.

The style is formal and direct, respectfully addressing the Speaker of the Riigikogu and the President of the Bank of Estonia. The tone is critical and challenging, using the opponent's claim (that climate goals boost the economy) to emphasize the reality of economic failure.

The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and accusatory, employing strong expressions such as "a disgrace" and labeling the system "a savage variant." The appeals are a blend of logical argumentation (referencing scientists, technical errors, and vote tallies) and emotional distrust directed at the system administrators. The speaker maintains a formal demeanor, yet utilizes sharp political and personal accusations regarding the issue of lacking trust.

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and direct, posing very specific and personal questions to the minister regarding the conflict of interest. Logical arguments are employed, citing an external expert opinion (attorney Mart Parind) and previous court rulings to underscore the severity of the situation. Furthermore, procedural intervention is utilized to broaden the minister's scope of responsibility (due to serving as acting prime minister).

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, addressing the presiding officer and the minister respectfully. Critical rhetorical questions are employed ("Why has this not been specified here...?"), intended to highlight deficiencies in the strategy and the unfair allocation of priorities. The tone is one of concern and demands clarification.

The rhetorical style is formal, procedural, and critical, posing challenging questions structured as a formal inquiry. The tone is one of concern and appeals directly to logic, focusing specifically on procedural deficiencies (the absence of involvement and analysis) and potential negative repercussions (irreversible damage). The subsequent follow-up question is straightforward and clarifying.

The style is formal and interrogative, addressing both the rapporteur and the session chair. Logical argumentation is employed (if it can be done without, then it is not essential), and in the second speech, the tone turns critical when challenging the violation of procedural rules (inappropriate comments and giggling) concerning the discussion of the Estonian language.

The style is formal and direct, posing a question that demands clarification from the Prime Minister via the presiding officer of the session. The tone is analytical, focusing on requiring logical justification for the government's political assertions.

The rhetorical style is critical, confrontational, and demanding, especially concerning ministerial accountability and social policy issues. Strong emotional appeals are utilized (e.g., "shocked," "appalling") when addressing school violence and child safety. The speaker poses direct questions aimed at assessing the minister's decisions and moral authority.

The rhetorical style is analytical, formal, and interrogative, addressing the presenter directly. The tone is one of concern, focusing on the potential negative future consequences of political decisions (the speed of reform), such as poor quality instruction. Logical argumentation is employed, rather than emotional appeals.

The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and interrogative, addressing the Session Chair and the Minister respectfully. The speaker employs logical argumentation, relying on specific details from the explanatory memorandum in order to achieve clarity on issues concerning consumers. The tone is demanding of information and moderately critical.

The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and question-focused, addressing the respected session chair and the rapporteur. The tone is analytical and critical, demanding explanations from the government concerning political decisions and the measures implemented. The appeals are primarily logical, focusing on the specific details of the policy.