By Plenary Sessions: Vadim Belobrovtsev

The tone is predominantly critical and accusatory, especially towards the government, which is accused of breaking pre-election promises. Both a logical appeal (the question regarding the timing of the fine increases) and an emotional appeal are used (referencing the loss of trust families feel toward the state). The style is formal, addressing ministers and commission representatives directly.

The style is formal and critical, presenting structured questions to the minister. The rhetoric is logical and focuses on data (budget figures) and legal argumentation. Moderately sharp language is used, referring to the Reform Party's policy as an "obsession."

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, skeptical, and concerned, particularly regarding the violation of parliamentary procedural rules, even including references to dictatorship. The speaker balances logical arguments (expert warnings, the German example) with emotional appeals focused on the devaluing of the importance of the electoral process. The speaker repeatedly employs rhetorical questions to underscore the absurdity and inconsistency of the viewpoints being addressed.

The style is critical and concerned, focusing on the negative societal consequences of fear-mongering. Logical arguments are employed, connecting panic to irrational behavior and demographic decline. The speaker also utilizes references to authorities (Kallas, Mihkelson, Herem) and rhetorical questions to underscore the detrimental nature of the government's communication.

The rhetorical style is critical and concerned, emphasizing the negative impact that economically difficult times are having on culture and sports. Logical arguments and contrasts are used (cultural facilities are prioritized, while sports facilities are "treated as a stepchild") to demonstrate the flawed nature of the government's priorities. The tone is formal, but it incorporates personal experience and urgently demands solutions instead of merely stating facts.

The rhetorical style is direct, critical, and concerned, often employing rhetorical questions to underscore the negative consequences of the policy and the decline in quality ("What is the quality of this education?"). The tone focuses on logical argumentation, highlighting the contradictions between qualifications and language proficiency.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and emotional, employing words such as "mockery," "disgraceful," and "ridiculous" to characterize the government's actions. The appeals are aimed chiefly at injustice and the government's evasion of responsibility, accusing the government of inaction and shifting the blame onto local municipalities.

The tone is predominantly critical and confrontational, particularly directed at the Prime Minister, accusing him/her of focusing on the past and breaking campaign promises. Both logical arguments (MoF data, the example of Portugal) and emotional rhetoric are employed, including phrases like ("our residents are being strangled by taxes"). The style remains formal, yet sharp questions are posed that demand concrete answers.

The tone is critical, concerned, and at times emotional, characterizing the government's actions as trust-eroding and mocking towards teachers. Both logical arguments (the breaking of promises) and emotional appeals (burnout) are employed, supported by specific figures and percentages. The style is formal yet clearly confrontational, emphasizing the government's irresponsible conduct.