By Plenary Sessions: Vadim Belobrovtsev

The rhetorical style is polite and inquisitive, addressing the presenter respectfully and thanking them for the presentation. The speech is logical and focuses on political balance, presenting criticism of the prevailing narrative in the form of a question.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, employing strong judgments such as "flawed legislation" and "an absurd and comical situation." The speaker relies heavily on logical arguments rooted in procedural errors, and uses a long, detailed historical narrative (the 2008 Tallinn example) to illustrate their position.

The tone is critical, insistent, and sharp, highlighting the seriousness of the issue and the government's failure to act. Both statistical data (a logical appeal) and sarcasm are employed, specifically by labeling the Social Democrats' submission of a bill from the opposition as "comical." The style remains formal, yet it includes direct accusations leveled at the predecessor.

The rhetorical style is analytical and critical, utilizing data to underscore the gravity of the situation and characterizing the problems as "catastrophic," "hopeless," and a "silent crisis." The speaker blends a courteous tone (thanking the minister, congratulating colleagues) with sharp substantive criticism, all while maintaining formal, data-driven language. The speech concludes with cautious optimism, notwithstanding the critical description of the circumstances.

The rhetorical style is inquisitive and challenging, directed at a colleague during a plenary session. A logical comparison is employed (Estonia vs. Finland/Germany), and skeptical rhetorical questions are posed to call into question the Estonian state's confidence in ensuring the security of e-elections.

The rhetorical style is critical, forceful, and direct, expressing pessimism regarding the coalition's willingness to cooperate. Both emotional appeals, emphasizing the survival difficulties faced by less affluent individuals, and logical, data-based arguments are employed. In addition to those present in the chamber, the speaker also addresses the Estonian people directly, who are following the debate online.

The style is formal and respectful, addressing the server with the phrase, "Esteemed Server!" The communication is strictly logical and focused on questions, with the aim of obtaining confirmation for the legal interpretation in the application of EU law.

The tone is critical, demanding, and persistent, stressing that no progress has been made in solving the problem over the years ("nothing has changed over the years"). The rhetoric balances logical arguments (statistics, legal deficiencies) with emotional appeals (outrage over the punishment of the local municipality). The style is formal, focusing on demanding accountability and presenting specific figures (e.g., 2,100 euros).

The rhetorical style is direct and interrogative, emphasizing the acuteness of the problem and demanding accountability. Contrastive rhetoric is employed ("small fierce digital nation" versus the most expensive prices), and the tone is anxious yet demanding, seeking a clear answer regarding future progress. The speaker references previous discussions, which lends weight to the question.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and accusatory, especially concerning the legitimacy of the government and its security policy. Both emotional appeals (sadness, disappointment) and logical arguments (such as the necessary vote yield) are utilized, contrasting their value-based approach with the opponents' Excel-based approach (implying a purely quantitative or bureaucratic focus). The speaker employs irony when criticizing the selective referencing of the Chancellor of Justice.

The style is formal and questioning, directed straight at a high state official (the Chancellor of Justice) during a plenary session. The speaker employs a logical and procedural approach, seeking clarification regarding the functioning of the legal mechanism without emotional appeals.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and at times emotional, particularly during the debate on the church law, where the expression "déjà-vu feeling" is employed. The speaker accuses opponents of excessively using the security threat (Putin, the Kremlin) to justify the proposed bills, noting that this does not make them more credible. Emphasis is placed on logical and legal arguments (the Constitution, impact analysis) versus vague threats.

The rhetorical style is critical and inquisitive, employing formal language when addressing the minister and the rapporteur. Strong expressions (e.g., "major blunder") are used to describe government errors, and logical appeals are presented, focusing on liberty and constitutionality. The style is predominantly logical, framing challenges in the form of rhetorical questions.

The style is polite and formal, addressing the minister directly. The rhetoric employs a pragmatic approach, emphasizing that the question is being posed "purely from the perspective of an ordinary person" in order to connect security issues with everyday life. The tone is information-seeking and concerned, rather than confrontational.