By Plenary Sessions: Helir-Valdor Seeder

The rhetorical style is predominantly critical and combative, especially concerning the government's actions, which are labeled as "folly" and an "exceedingly foolish solution." It employs strong logical arguments, drawing upon historical compromises and specific financial examples (e.g., the loss of the revenue base for the city of Paide). The tone is formal yet passionate, also incorporating ironic remarks (e.g., regarding Annely's competence on financial matters and the turning off of the light at the podium).

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and penetrating, employing powerful metaphors (e.g., "trembling for one's seat like a loose coin") to cast doubt on the Prime Minister's political resolve. The speaker highlights the Reform Party's inaction and dishonesty, repeatedly raising specific questions regarding practical steps. The tone remains formal, yet the substance is intensely confrontational.

The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and focuses on logical arguments, relying on legal statutes and the rational use of time. The tone is demanding and clarity-seeking, particularly concerning the session chair's duty to introduce the procedural order during technical problems.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, urgent, and combative, expressing personal fear regarding the government's actions. Irony is employed (e.g., bringing prisoners to Estonia as "Estonia's Nokia") alongside strong emotional appeals, while simultaneously relying on concrete data and references (e.g., the Chancellor of Justice's views, an article written by a Sakala journalist). The Minister's presentation was described as "soporific" and the responses as "evasive."

The rhetorical style is critical and pressing, posing direct questions to the minister concerning the government’s inaction and the absence of solutions. The tone is formal and analytical, focusing on logical argumentation and policy effectiveness, stressing that the objective is to train soldiers, not "cannon fodder."

The rhetorical style is demanding and repetitive, focusing on extracting specific answers regarding the substance of the responsibility. It employs both logical argumentation (requiring a description of the content of the responsibility) and emotional appeal, emphasizing the injustice of the situation concerning the future of young people. The tone is formal, yet critical and persistent.