By Plenary Sessions: Vadim Belobrovtsev

The rhetorical style is critical and confrontational, employing strong contrasts (e.g., blocking qualified teachers versus allowing unqualified ones) and rhetorical questions designed to cast doubt on the rationality of the government's actions. Figurative language is utilized (for instance, the prime minister is "with one foot in Europe"), and the speaker's position as the defender of the interests of the Estonian people is strongly emphasized.

The rhetorical style is polite and question-focused ("Esteemed presenter!"), yet simultaneously concerned and critical. Logical appeals are employed, emphasizing the negative diplomatic repercussions of adopting the draft bill and posing rhetorical questions regarding the initiators' comprehension.

The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and sharply critical, posing questions aimed directly at the minister. Rhetorical questions are employed to implicitly accuse the government of incompetence or political manipulation. The tone is skeptical and demanding, concentrating on logical and procedural appeals.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and combative, accusing the coalition of employing "steamroller politics" and lying to the public. Both logical arguments (the Estonian economy is in free fall, budget deficits) and emotional appeals (a schizophrenic situation, the bill will painfully impact low-income groups) are utilized. The speaker addresses the session chair, colleagues, and the public directly, demanding the coalition show "backbone" by admitting responsibility for its actions.

The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and interrogative, making strong use of rhetorical questions to challenge the appropriateness of the Foreign Minister's conduct. The speaker employs a logical appeal by creating a hypothetical counter-scenario (the Foreign Minister at a demonstration in Tallinn) to substantiate their argument regarding diplomatic impropriety.

The style of the address is interrogative and challenging, even though the minister is addressed formally. A rhetorical question is employed, and reference is made to journalistic criticism to emphasize public concern regarding the minister's expenditures. The tone is skeptical, demanding a compelling justification from the minister as to why these expenditures are urgently necessary.