By Plenary Sessions: Evelin Poolamets

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and confrontational, especially during the debate on the motion of no confidence, where extensive documentation regarding the opponent's personal insults is utilized. The style is a blend of procedural skepticism and direct emotional attack, culminating in the question, "What is wrong with you?" The tone is formal, but the substance is highly personal and accusatory, emphasizing the ministers' unethical conduct and the disregard shown toward parliament.

The rhetorical style is formal, but it becomes extremely critical and combative when expressing opposition. Strong imagery is used, such as "tsunami of massive bureaucracy" and "absurd requirements," emphasizing both logical appeals (costs) and emotional appeals (injustice). In the lengthy speech, entrepreneurs watching the broadcast are addressed directly to explain the negative impact of the new requirements.

The rhetorical style is challenging and skeptical, posing direct questions to the minister regarding the foundations of the policy ("What makes you think Estonia can handle this?"). The argumentation relies on a logical appeal, citing international failures and risks stemming from differences in legal norms. The tone is formal, addressing the respected Chairman of the session and the Minister.

The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and procedural, posing questions to both the minister and the committee rapporteur. The appeals are purely logical and fact-based, emphasizing the minister's inability to answer the question.

The rhetorical style is formal, yet sharply critical and skeptical, using direct address to the minister to pose questions. The speaker uses rhetorical questions to call the minister’s justifications into question and push them to extreme conclusions, such as the theme of the collapse of the market economy.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and at times emotional, employing strong judgments such as "unprecedented and cruel." The focus is on logical appeals, specifically highlighting the lack of consequence and impact analyses, while demanding concrete answers from the minister. The questions themselves are direct and demanding, pointing out issues that have been left unanswered.

The rhetorical style is urgent and sharply critical, aimed especially at the government and the Reform Party, who are accused of lacking interest in children's welfare. Both logical arguments (statistical data) and emotional appeals are utilized, pointing to the opponents' negative attitude toward childbearing and families. The speaker uses examples (e.g., a neighbor’s decision to have a third child with the help of subsidies) to emphasize the effectiveness of the support measures.

The rhetorical style is critical, demanding, and direct, focusing on demanding accountability. The speaker contrasts the minister's "optimism" with the facts concerning the road maintenance debt and demands concrete plans. Sharp language is used, accusing the minister of "boasting and talking big for no reason."