By Plenary Sessions: Vadim Belobrovtsev

The rhetorical style is predominantly critical, sharp, and occasionally ironic, especially when describing the government's actions (e.g., "ridiculous sum"). The speaker employs both emotional appeals (the teachers' loss of hope) and logical arguments, explaining detailed financial schemes and supporting their claims with media citations.

The tone is critical and demanding, particularly regarding the uncertainty surrounding the salaries of internal security personnel. Logical arguments are employed (the budget deficit, the amount to be saved) alongside direct proposals intended to force the government to shift its stance. The style is formal, yet it incorporates sharp contrasts (the conflicting messages of the Minister versus the Prime Minister, the Reform Party's fixation).

The rhetorical style is critical, emphasizing logic, and occasionally emotional, employing phrases such as "fleecing pensioners" and "fixation." The speaker uses rhetorical questions ("where is the logic here?") and quotes Andrus Ansip, the former chairman of the Reform Party, to highlight the internal party division. The tone is formal but sharp in substance, aiming to convince both the audience present and television viewers of the necessity of rejecting the draft bill.

The style is critical and direct, posing a question to the Minister of Social Affairs, who has been "put on the spot." Strong expressions are employed (e.g., "pushed through by force"), and widespread opposition from social partners (employers, trade unions) is cited to underscore the policy's injustice. The rhetoric is largely logical and fact-based, concentrating on the negative repercussions of the policy.

The rhetorical style is direct, critical, and concerned, posing structured questions to the prime minister. A logical appeal is employed, contrasting the government's actions with earlier election promises, and referencing previous discussions held in the chamber, alongside information obtained from the media.

The rhetorical style is analytical and interrogative, presenting the minister with a series of questions that highlight the practical shortcomings and dilemmas inherent in political solutions. The tone is formal and logical, focusing on bringing problems to light and addressing the issue of funding solutions (e.g., building new kindergartens).

The style is analytical and critical, employing strong logical arguments and citing experts (the Chancellor of Justice, oversight bodies). The discourse is formal and structured, clearly framing the arguments as both formal and substantive deficiencies. Accusatory language is utilized concerning political motives (point-scoring) and an unjust collective approach.

The rhetorical style is critical, concerned, and demanding, underscoring the gravity and regrettable nature of the situation. It employs logical appeals, relying heavily on international data and citations (IMF). The style is further characterized by an ironic juxtaposition with former political slogans, aiming to highlight the government's failure and the deplorable state of affairs today.

The speaker’s style is critical and skeptical, avoiding bombast or excessive pathos, but employing emotionally charged terms like "the disservice medal" and "ridicule." They rely heavily on logical arguments, citing explanatory notes, ministerial opinions, and the coalition agreement, and use the example of Town Hall Square (Raekoja plats) to illustrate the importance of preserving the integrity of Tammsaare Park.

The tone is critical, accusatory, and insistent, particularly regarding the minister’s denial of responsibility, which is viewed as a non-constructive approach. Specific examples and recurring facts (such as salary delays happening twice consecutively) are employed to bolster the logical arguments. The speaker also references their active media engagement (multiple interviews) concerning the motion of no confidence.

The rhetorical style is consistently interrogative and confrontational, repeatedly highlighting unanswered questions and casting doubt on the motives of the opposing party. It employs both fact-based references (quotes, data) and moral appeals (the sanctity of Maundy Thursday). The tone is accusatory, referring to the opponents’ actions as a "campaign" and the dissemination of "misinformation."