By Plenary Sessions: Helir-Valdor Seeder

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, employing strong emotional and ethical language (e.g., "ugly and vile," "it is very difficult to remain balanced here"). The speaker balances this emotional intensity with legal arguments (constitutional legal certainty) and a forecast of the financial impact (in the hundreds of millions).

The style is sharp, accusatory, and penetrating, highlighting the government's deceitfulness and its rigid adherence to dogma. It repeatedly employs the term "statesmanship" as a moral appeal, urging the coalition toward greater responsibility. It combines logical arguments (specific monetary figures) with emotional accusations (lying, farce, a foolish draft bill). Procedural issues are also raised, challenging the competence of colleagues and the interpretation of the rules of procedure.

The speaker’s style is critical and direct, employing both emotional appeals (references to historical pain and the threat of societal moral decay) and logical arguments (procedural errors, the growth of bureaucracy). The tone towards the coalition is sharp, accusing them of ignoring more substantive contributions and speaking to deaf ears. He/She emphasizes that the final vote represents a "black and white choice."

The speaker's style is sharp, critical, and insistent, underscoring the gravity of the situation and the deplorability of the government's inaction. He/She employs strong contrasts (e.g., the swift adoption of the tax package versus the dragging out of security matters) and levels accusations against the government (e.g., "cunning or impudence," having "manipulated" the assessments provided by security agencies). The focus rests equally on logical argumentation (referencing experts and KAPO) and emotional appeal, directly linking the subject matter to the threat of war.

The speaker's style is predominantly combative and forceful, particularly when discussing procedural issues, utilizing strong expressions such as "completely wrong and misleading," "horribly misleading," and "violently and unlawfully." Appeals are made both to logic (by referencing laws and Supreme Court decisions) and to emotion and morality (by referencing painful historical moments associated with denunciation). The tone is formal yet critical, demanding comprehensive explanations and the termination of the proceedings.

The style is sharp, accusatory, and insistent, highlighting the government's inaction and failure to deliver on its promises. Rhetorical questions and accusations are employed to pressure the opposition, for instance, by referencing the "tax war" and the "abstract shifting of responsibility elsewhere." The appeal itself is mainly logical and fact-based, relying heavily on legal expertise.

The discourse is predominantly formal, analytical, and critical, relying heavily on logical arguments and facts (expert assessments). The tone is serious and concerned regarding issues of electoral confidence and procedural violations. When communicating with the adversary, the tone is sharp and demanding, calling upon colleagues to speak on subjects they are proficient in.

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, critical, and accusatory, employing strong emotional expressions such as "tax war," "hypocrisy," and "yet another lie." He combines these accusations with detailed logical arguments that focus on the lack of data, the narrow scope of the draft bill, and legislative errors. The politician also utilizes historical references to criticize the ideological consistency of the Social Democrats and former colleagues (Tsahkna).