By Plenary Sessions: Riina Solman

The style of address is formal and respectful, deferentially engaging both the Vice-Chairman and the rapporteur. The rhetoric is analytical and question-focused, seeking solutions and commentary on complex social dilemmas, balancing political strength with social sensitivity.

The rhetorical style is direct, inquisitive, and deeply concerned, particularly when addressing social issues, exemplified by highlighting the specific situation of a "concerned mother." Logical argumentation is employed to underscore policy deficiencies (such as inaccessible services) and procedural failures (like neglecting to inform partners).

The rhetorical style is critical and pressing, emphasizing the seriousness of the demographic situation and the irresponsibility of the policy. Both emotional appeals are utilized (the health and sense of security of mothers and children) as well as political and procedural criticism (inadequate analysis, cuts implemented prior to analysis). The tone is formal yet concerned, directly conveying the question posed by a worried parent.

The rhetorical style is formal and question-driven, respectfully addressing the Deputy Speaker of the Riigikogu and the Minister. Logical argumentation is employed to underscore the severity of the illegal labor issue and to demand specific control measures from the state. The tone is one of concern, yet remains pragmatic, focusing squarely on a political resolution.

The rhetorical style is questioning, anxious, and skeptical, employing emotional appeal and hyperbole, often citing extreme examples (such as a child wanting to be a cat or a tree). The speaker presents their views through sharp questions, accusing the opposing side of "marketing" the topic and exploiting the indecisiveness of young people.

The style is dual: one speaker employs an emotional and rhetorical style, emphasizing injustice and suffering and posing sharp questions. The second speaker is extremely formal, neutral, and procedure-oriented, providing a fact-based overview of the bill’s procedural history and referring to specific dates.

The rhetorical style is critical, questioning, and at times confrontational, particularly when directed at the Reform Party. Emotional appeals are used, referencing the public's indignation and commending a colleague for standing on the side of the people. The speaker engages in political labeling, leveling accusations of "cronyism" and criticizing the coalition's low participation in the discussion.

The rhetorical style is direct and provocative, employing pointed questions to comment on the minister's actions and hold them accountable. The speaker begins formally but quickly shifts to a logical appeal, emphasizing the connection between the loss of funding and the deterioration of mental health.

The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, focusing on ethical and cultural appeals aimed at improving parliamentary conduct. The tone is critical yet measured, concluding with a conciliatory and cooperative note on behalf of Isamaa. Conceptual terms are used, such as "superiority," "integrity," and "narrow-mindedness."

The style is formal, direct, and centered on questioning, posing several sharp political questions to the Prime Minister. The tone is analytical and challenging, demanding explanations regarding both financial details and strategic decisions (the location of the gas facility).