By Plenary Sessions: Vadim Belobrovtsev

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and urgent, often employing terms like "chaos" and "steamroller politics." The speaker emphasizes emotional appeal, referencing the loss of trust among the Estonian people and posing rhetorical questions regarding the government’s style of governance. Contrasting examples are utilized (false data versus massive sums), and there is a direct address to the "simple Estonian person."

The tone is critical, pressing, and concerned, characterizing the situation as "a sad topic." The speaker employs strong, emotional language (for instance, the fee hike is "from a parallel universe") and raises rhetorical questions about the government's objectives. Furthermore, the style is fact-based, casting doubt on the minister's predictions concerning AirBaltic's future plans.

The rhetorical style is serious, defensive, and at times forceful, balancing emotional appeals (injustice, alienation) with logical, expert-backed arguments. Repeated citations are employed, particularly from President Alar Karis’s speech, alongside rhetorical questions, to underscore the detrimental nature of the draft bill and the hidden motives of its proponents. The speaker warns that the bill is "water for the Kremlin's mill," emphasizing its society-dividing impact.

The style is urgent, critical, and highly structured, relying heavily on facts and statistics to underscore the gravity of the situation. The speaker balances logical arguments (economic damage) with emotional appeals (the difference in healthy life years). The tone is formal and confrontational when criticizing the government's inaction.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusing the minister of demagoguery and lying, and calling into question the arguments' ability to withstand scrutiny. Both logical argumentation (citing legal deficiencies and constitutional risks) and emotional appeals are employed, warning against the division of society and the abuse of the security argument. The speech is formal, yet it contains sharp personal attacks.

The rhetorical style is serious, analytical, and inquisitive, emphasizing the rapid change and significance of the situation. The speaker poses a series of strategic and general questions to the Prime Minister, focusing on logical scenario analysis and avoiding emotional appeals.

The style is formal, yet probing and skeptical, raising questions that challenge the justification of the government’s policy. The speaker begins with a brief, light, and humorous remark, but the main body consists of a logical and fact-based examination of the arguments. He expresses a personal lack of understanding regarding the Prime Minister’s argument, which adds intensity to the questions being posed.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and skeptical, especially concerning the Education Agreement, where the government's failure and the erosion of trust are emphasized. Logical arguments and data are employed, presenting direct questions about the minister's accountability and the fulfillment of promises, including demanding that the promise of resignation be honored.

The rhetorical style is critical, accusatory, and deeply concerned, characterizing the opponents' actions as "political nihilism" and "quite cynical." Appeals are directed both at logic (the implications of the legislative changes, the Venice Commission) and at the sense of justice, emphasizing that disenfranchisement is unjust toward individuals who have paid taxes for years. A procedural appeal regarding the right to reply is also present.

The rhetorical style is critical and direct, focusing on challenging the behavior and arguments of political opponents. It employs specific political terminology ("whataboutism," "EKREIKE") and presents its questions in a structured manner, distinguishing between the form and content of the draft bill. The speech begins with an apology for being late, which was due to giving an interview to journalists.

The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and expresses concern, particularly regarding national security. The speaker demands direct, non-generalized answers from the Prime Minister ("not just a boilerplate response"), substantiating their claims with a list of specific conflicts occurring within the coalition. An emotional appeal is also employed, highlighting that the coalition partners' disputes unfolded right before the eyes of diplomats.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and emotional, repeatedly using the expression "embarrassing" to describe the parliamentary culture and the Foreign Minister's conduct. The speaker focuses on the inadequacy and vagueness of the responses ("vague," "inadequate"), contrasting this with sound parliamentary political culture. The tone is accusatory and judgmental.

The tone is predominantly critical and combative, aimed particularly at the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior, who are accused of making poor decisions and lacking resolve. The style is formal, yet it frequently employs rhetorical questions to underscore the illogical and unfair nature of the government's actions. Logical arguments and data are highlighted, but an emotional appeal concerning the safety and security of North Tallinn residents is also included.