By Plenary Sessions: Riina Solman

The tone is critical, sharp, and accusatory, especially regarding the government's lack of planning, utilizing phrases like "complete nonsense," "absurd," and "aimless and unplanned scrambling." The speech is logically structured, focusing on highlighting the state's contradictory actions (e.g., the bog restoration of Lavassaare versus its function as a mineral deposit). The speaker employs both personal experiences and political slogans ("with party political slogans").

The rhetorical style is formal, cautious, and substantive, addressing both the minister and colleagues respectfully. Both logical arguments (lack of regulations, insufficient research) and emotional examples (young accident victims, the feeling of being a burden) are employed. The speaker emphasizes the need for "delicacy and caution" when addressing the topic and uses rhetorical questions to highlight the practical shortcomings of the draft bill.

The rhetorical style is formal and demanding, posing a direct question to the minister to secure accountability. A logical appeal is employed, contrasting the minister's previous promise (a priority) with the slow progress of the government's negotiations. The tone is critical and emphasizes the government's inaction.

The rhetorical style is analytical and interrogative, focusing on procedural correctness and the preparation undertaken by the opposing party. The speaker presents logical challenges, questioning whether the presenter has communicated directly with the official Electoral Commission. The tone is formal and neutral, avoiding emotional appeals.

The rhetorical style is critical and pressing, combining statistical data with emotional appeals concerning poverty and marginalization, which is referred to as "the hidden side of the Estonian state." Figurative language is employed (e.g., "the little golden key"), and sharp questions are posed to the Prime Minister, demanding concrete solutions. The tone is formal, yet direct and accusatory.

The tone is sharp and urgent, prompted by the public disclosure of a specific, heinous case of elder abuse. The speaker balances emotional appeals (expressing gratitude for bringing the incident to the forefront) with factual data concerning price hikes and profits to underscore the systemic nature of the problem.

The tone is predominantly accusatory, urgent, and confrontational, especially when directed at the Prime Minister. Strong emotional appeals are employed, referencing poverty, hunger, and the suffering of children. The style is at times personal, accusing male politicians of the Reform Party of insulting and belittling female politicians, while simultaneously demanding statesmanship. It repeatedly utilizes accusations of lying and breaking promises (specifically regarding the temporary nature of the VAT increase).

The tone is critical and deeply concerned, highlighting social injustice and government inaction. The speaker employs emotional phrases ("our concerns were completely ignored," "treated unfairly") to underscore the gravity of the situation. Simultaneously, logical and practical questions are posed to the Chancellor of Justice regarding the accessibility of legal aid and the search for viable solutions.

The rhetorical style is formal, yet its content is confrontational and provocative, posing pointed questions to the minister regarding specific regulatory solutions. The speaker employs emotionally charged examples (for instance, a boxer knocking out female athletes) and highlights their own prior ministerial experience to challenge the minister’s stance. While they begin by commending the balanced nature of the address, they quickly pivot to opposing viewpoints.