By Plenary Sessions: Riina Solman

The rhetoric is sharp, confrontational, and demanding, accusing the opposing side of presenting distorted facts, engaging in demagoguery, and dividing society. The style is formal (in the context of the Riigikogu), relying heavily on statistical data and the opponent's exact quotations to highlight inaccuracies. Procedural appeals to the presiding officer of the session are also utilized.

The rhetorical style is sharp, confrontational, and accusatory, employing strong judgments such as "extremely unfair," "perverse and deceitful," and "tankist." The speaker uses irony ("Allow me to laugh!") and poses questions aimed at refuting the opposing party's accusations.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and accusatory, particularly directed at government ministers. The text employs both specific data (a logical appeal) and strong emotional arguments, leveling accusations of unfair treatment and delivering a "devastating blow" to the birth rate. The speaker demands accountability and proper legislative action.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and confrontational, focusing both on substantive political issues and the minister's unethical behavior (raising his voice). Emotional appeals are employed, highlighting large families and people with disabilities, alongside dramatic phrases, such as describing the government's claims as "going completely overboard." The speaker repeatedly demands answers, emphasizing the contradictory nature of the government's positions.

The rhetorical style is urgent and serious, emphasizing messages that instill faith and hope, while simultaneously demanding concrete and swift actions. It employs both emotional appeals (a stronger sense of security for the people) and references to authorities (General Herem). The phrasing is direct and critical of the coalition partner's inaction, utilizing strong terminology such as "residents carrying the values of a terrorist state."

The style is formal, critical, and demanding, presenting a direct question to the Prime Minister requesting comment on the ministers' statements. The argumentation is logical, relying on quotes from both government members (Riisalo, IT Minister) and economic experts. The tone is concerned and sharp, focusing on political inconsistency.