By Plenary Sessions: Priit Sibul

The rhetorical style is formal, yet simultaneously sharply accusatory and interrogative. The speaker employs direct questions to challenge the target's ideological consistency and integrity, repeatedly asking: "What exactly happened in the interim?" The tone is critical, centered on the logical demand for an explanation regarding the discrepancies between past and current stances.

The rhetorical style is sharply aggressive and critical, employing strong emotional language ("catastrophic consequences," "mystical idea"). Historical citations and juxtaposition are utilized to underscore the government's ideological divergence and the erosion of trust. The appeals tend to be ideological and value-driven, rather than data-driven.

The style is formal and direct, addressing the candidate respectfully, yet the content is skeptical and critical, particularly concerning the political continuity of the coalition. The speaker employs logical appeals, posing detailed questions regarding taxes and defense spending, but also opens with cautious goodwill toward the candidate, while simultaneously noting the complexity of the times ahead.

The rhetorical style is critical and interrogative, focusing on both procedural and substantive shortcomings. Rhetorical questions are employed to underscore the arbitrariness and unreasonableness of the parliamentary majority's decisions. The tone is formal and logical, stressing legal correctness.