By Plenary Sessions: Vadim Belobrovtsev

The rhetorical style is critical, principled, and deeply concerned, highlighting the danger and irresponsibility inherent in amending the constitution while a war rages across Europe. It employs strong logical appeals, relying extensively on the views of professional experts to dismantle the security argument. The discourse is formal and centers on the opposition between a principled position and political self-interest.

The tone is confrontational and critical, particularly concerning the government's actions, utilizing strong language such as "catastrophic" and accusing the coalition of "throwing proposals in the trash." He employs logical appeals, demanding simple and detailed explanations from the minister regarding the fine so that "every Estonian person can understand." The speaker is direct and emphasizes the coalition's responsibility in passing the car tax for the sake of the official record.

The rhetorical style is critical, inquisitive, and analytical. Logical arguments are employed, focusing on procedural deficiencies and the poor quality of political statements, while labeling the coalition's rationale a "very convenient justification." The tone is formal and direct, emphasizing the concrete nature of the facts and documents.

The style is critical, analytical, and urgent, utilizing strong expressions such as "catastrophic" and "political-technological maneuver" (a smokescreen). The appeals are primarily logical, relying on statistics and economic rationality (where will the money come from?), but delivered with a skeptical and demanding tone. The speaker poses questions that call into question the government's motives and competence.

The rhetorical style is insistent, alarming, and confrontational, underscoring the severity of the demographic crisis and the threat of national extinction. Both logical arguments (statistics, three factors) and emotional appeals (referencing the constant fear-mongering about war) are employed. The speaker is direct and accusatory regarding the government's inaction.

The rhetorical style is both analytical and critical, pointing to previous ineffective spending ("embarrassing situations"). However, the question itself is posed with a hopeful tone, hinting at potential support from the Prime Minister. Logical appeals are employed, stressing the budget's simplicity and clarity for both members of the Riigikogu and the general public.

The tone is critical and concerned, particularly regarding parliamentary culture and the inaction of the Ministry of Education, using questions intended to give coalition members food for thought. Both logical arguments (examples from previous votes) and cautionary imagery (a video teacher standing before the class) are employed to underscore the seriousness and urgency of the issues. The style is direct and accusatory toward the coalition, yet constructive concerning the substance of the policy.

The address is analytical and critical, employing rhetorical questions to challenge the government’s actions. The tone is sharp, particularly regarding the budget, where unspent funds are sarcastically referred to as a "lottery win." In the second speech, the style is argumentative, relying on logic and the authority of external experts to dismantle the opponents' rhetoric (the "hostage crisis").

The style is analytical and critical, relying on logical questions regarding proportionality and utilizing specific data (e.g., 32.4%). The speaker employs a rhetorical question ("Which one would they choose?") to underscore their position, but when addressing the topic of phosphate rock, the tone remains formal and is aimed at highlighting the necessity of discussion.