By Plenary Sessions: Riina Sikkut

The style is sharply critical and confrontational, repeatedly employing rhetorical questions ("How is a person supposed to understand this...?") and the emotional word "strange." The speaker focuses on highlighting the illogical nature of the government's actions and demands that the minister allow the refutation of false claims in the Riigikogu hall.

The style is analytical and sharply critical, employing emotional assessments (e.g., "embarrassing process," "frightening") to characterize procedures and the government's reliability. The speaker relies on logical arguments, examples (Olerex), and statistics to underscore social inequality and the necessity of deterrence. He/She repeatedly uses rhetorical questions to highlight the oddity and inconsistency of the government’s actions.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and direct, employing irony (discussing parallel proceedings immediately after warnings about court overload) and repeated questions to cast doubt on the opponent's motives. The speaker presents strong accusations, which culminate in the question: "Whose business interests are you representing?" The appeal is primarily logical and fact-based, referencing specific draft legislation and coalition agreements.

The rhetorical style is critical and concerned, highlighting the persistence of an economic problem spanning decades. Historical references and a rhetorical question are employed to challenge the presenter to find new solutions. The tone is analytical, focusing on a logical argument concerning value creation and local capital.

The rhetorical style is formal, serious, and urgent, emphasizing the pressing nature of the security situation and value-based defense. Strong contrasts are employed (past humanitarian considerations versus the current security requirement), and the adversary's behavior is described in highly condemnatory terms (war crimes, indifference to human life). The decision is referred to as a symbolic step, demonstrating a readiness to utilize all necessary measures.

The rhetorical style is analytical and questioning, directed at the Prime Minister concerning the realism of political choices. Logical arguments are employed, contrasting the complex system of tax exemptions with a simpler and more effective increase in benefits. The tone is formal and focuses on policy details.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and critical, posing a pointed question to the minister. The speaker uses the tactic of quoting the opponent's position only to subsequently refute it, relying on logical arguments and expert recommendations (evidence-based) to demand the achievement of specific sectoral goals.

The rhetorical style is substantive, formal, and insistent, especially when emphasizing social concerns ("cannot wait") and the need to integrate healthcare ("the political window may close"). Logical and fact-based arguments are used, referencing previous decisions and laws. The speaker is persistent, noting that they asked the Minister of Finance the same question regarding fixed costs twice.