By Plenary Sessions: Vadim Belobrovtsev

The rhetorical style is unusual and entertaining, employing rhyming verse and sarcasm ("this resembles a circus here"). The tone is predominantly combative and critical, directed at ministers and political parties through personalized attacks. The speaker utilizes both emotional appeals (such as playing the national anthem) and solemn wishes (like calling for a Christmas truce).

The rhetorical style is demanding, sharply critical, and at times confrontational, especially when addressing ministers. Strong judgments are employed ("terrible," "wrong") and the issue of accountability is stressed. The speaker relies on both logical arguments and specific data (such as budget figures) as well as emotional appeals, highlighting the diminishing sense of security among residents.

The speaker’s style is direct and interrogative, putting pointed questions to both the minister and the rapporteur. Regarding domestic issues, the tone is critical and skeptical, accusing ministries of handling the budget "with excessive freedom" and demanding explanations.

The style is formal, direct, and questioning, aimed at the presenter. Logical and principled arguments (justice, solidarity) are used to highlight the system's inconsistencies. The tone is analytical and emphasizes the need for transparency.

The rhetoric is critical and combative, employing sharp expressions like "shoddy work" and accusing the ministry of indifference toward its target groups. Logical arguments are emphasized (lack of resources, qualification requirements), but an emotional appeal is also included regarding the growing financial burden on parents at a time when taxes and excise duties are being raised. The style is formal yet straightforward.

The rhetorical style is critical and challenging, employing strong contrasts (Estonia vs. Latvia/Lithuania) and rhetorical questions to highlight the unfairness of the government's decisions. The speaker quotes the prime minister's phrase ("tax festival") and references the public debate surrounding the alcohol lobby to underscore the government's inconsistencies.

The rhetorical style is skeptical and critical, starting with the statement that he is not "such a big optimist." The speaker uses logical arguments, referencing a specific example (the next year's budget and the comments of the chairman of the finance committee) to illustrate the voting down of the opposition's proposals. The tone is direct and focuses on the question of fairness.

The style is critical and interrogative, widely employing rhetorical questions to challenge the government's actions and demand explanations. The tone is formal and detailed, relying on logical argumentation and the analysis of previous behavior patterns. Especially concerning foreign policy issues, the emphasis is worried and accusatory, pointing to the straining of Estonian-Israeli relations.

The rhetorical style is combative and critical, employing irony and sarcasm (e.g., the "beautiful names" given to new taxes, such as the "tax for eliminating treatment queues"). It combines logical arguments (references to the finance minister's statements, the positions of ELVL) with emotional appeals, emphasizing the negative impact of tax hikes on the Estonian people and how they reach into their pockets.

The rhetorical style is confrontational, accusatory, and ironic, focusing on the contradictions between the opponent’s (the Minister of the Interior’s) past promises and current actions. Rhetorical questions are employed, and three scenarios are presented (including an accusation of lying) to emphasize the lack of trustworthiness. The tone is formal yet highly critical, stressing the Center Party’s "naivety" in trusting the minister.

The rhetorical style is questioning and concerned, repeatedly employing rhetorical questions to emphasize the negative consequences of government actions and demand accountability. The tone is formal and centers on logical argumentation, referencing personal experience as an example of a bureaucratic error. The speaker also expresses a certain ambivalence (regarding alcohol/tobacco excise duties), which lends a deliberate character to the style.