By Plenary Sessions: Vadim Belobrovtsev

The rhetorical style is formal, straightforward, and analytical, presenting the questions to the minister as clearly numbered points (a, b, c). Logical argumentation is employed, emphasizing foreign experience (Canada) in risk assessment, and the tone is neutral and investigative.

The rhetorical style is analytical, skeptical, and confrontational, posing direct and challenging questions to the minister. The speaker relies primarily on logical arguments and international comparisons to demonstrate the impracticality of the government's proposal. The tone is skeptical, casting doubt on the government's competence.

The rhetorical style is direct, demanding, and critical, expressing dissatisfaction with the government's sluggishness and indecisiveness. Sharp assessments are employed, such as "this is not a very pretty picture" and "the government seems desperate," to underscore the gravity of the situation. The speaker poses specific questions and demands that solutions be found at a higher level, especially in cases of delays.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and systematic, focusing on mapping out problems and identifying those responsible. Strong emotional language is employed (e.g., "catastrophe," "mockery," "a ridiculous step"), and the speaker stresses the necessity of discussing the actual problems, rather than just the minister's "beautiful things." The speaker utilizes both a logical enumeration of issues and a personal appeal made in their capacity as a parent.

The rhetorical style is very specific, analytical, and at times sharp, criticizing opponents for their lack of understanding of the constitution and their use of emotional rhetoric (Kremlin, Putin). The speaker relies on logical arguments, citing the president's stance and the statements made by the chairmen of the commissions to affirm their position regarding the bill's redundancy and unconstitutionality.

The style is interrogative and critical, addressing the rapporteur directly. The speaker employs rhetorical questions to highlight the unethical and illogical nature of the government's actions, focusing on logical arguments concerning parliamentary culture and procedure. The tone is formal and concerned.

The rhetorical style is critical, persistent, and at times confrontational, particularly when the sincerity of the Foreign Minister's response is called into question. Strong emotional appeals are used, emphasizing the public's bewilderment and disappointment, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is accused of distancing itself and shifting responsibility onto the Riigikogu.

The rhetorical style is critical and questioning, employing rhetorical questions to express concern and doubt regarding the government's new direction ("Is this truly our new direction, the new reality for the future?"). The speaker highlights both societal moods ("punishments are too lenient") and economic considerations (the state wants to save money).

The rhetorical style is critical and combative, drawing on historical parallels (a déjà vu of 2008) and highlighting the vulnerability of workers. It employs both logical arguments (the change in the coefficient) and emotional appeals, referencing the difficult lives people are facing due to tax hikes and inflation. The tone is formal, yet it contains sharp criticism aimed at the coalition partners.

The rhetorical style is analytical and interrogative, leaning heavily on data and the projections of financial institutions while strictly avoiding emotional appeals. The tone is serious and concerned, centered on the logical discussion of economic facts and their subsequent social impact.