By Plenary Sessions: Riina Solman

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, but it shifts in the second address, becoming sharply critical and dissatisfied due to the inadequacy of the previous response. Logical argumentation is employed, demanding specific bases, conditions, and identified decision-makers, while simultaneously leveling indirect accusations concerning political bias and the purchasing of loyalty.

The style is formal, analytical, and sharply critical, particularly concerning government communication and the conduct of the former minister. Logical arguments and rigorous fact-checking are employed (such as the car ownership issue or specific dates) to expose alleged inaccuracies and manipulation. The speaker stresses the necessity for institutional integrity and infallibility, utilizing rhetorical questions and direct accusations of political theatrics.

The style is sharp, accusatory, and confrontational, focusing on exposing the minister's unethical conduct and evasion of responsibility (referred to as "stonewalling"). Logical appeals are employed to highlight the protection afforded to coalition partners and the political bias inherent in the accusations, often through direct and challenging questions. The speaker demands accountability and criticizes the minister for fostering a sense of impunity among prosecutors.

The rhetorical style is serious, cautious, and concerned, emphasizing ethical responsibility and the need for maximum prudence ("doubt in the heart"). It utilizes both logical arguments (procedural order, international examples) and emotional appeals (the fear of becoming a burden on the elderly). The style is formal and addresses both those present in the hall and those following via the internet.

The rhetorical style is highly confrontational, insistent, and accusatory, especially when responding to the Foreign Minister, who is accused of arrogant and inappropriate behavior, as well as demagoguery. Both emotional examples (the Bolt taxi in Paris, the fear felt by the Jewish community) and concrete facts (voting dates) are used to support their positions. The speaker employs direct accusations of presenting false claims and asks procedurally whether the minister's conduct qualifies as defamation.

The style is formal and businesslike, addressing respected officials in the form of a question. The speaker employs logical argumentation (the need for an independent expert) but emotionally emphasizes the plight of children as victims. The tone is concerned and solution-oriented.

The speaker's style is highly combative, critical, and emotionally charged, using phrases like "tax festival," "sleight of hand," and "insane." He/She consistently contrasts the prime minister’s optimistic slogans ("life will get easier") with bleak future forecasts, demanding that the prime minister speak the truth. The speech is formal, yet it includes strong personal accusations directed at the government.

The rhetorical style is formal and respectful toward the presenter, who is praised for their sound advice, and whose speech is desired to be widely disseminated in the media. However, the tone regarding the government's actions is demanding and urgent, emphasizing the necessity of an immediate correction of errors. The speaker uses their role as a former teacher as an authority to offer advice on the wisdom of hindsight.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and often sarcastic, employing humor directed both at the chair and the opposition (e.g., "Grilling Võrklaev," "the tired look"). Strong accusatory terms are utilized (e.g., "twisting the truth," "sleight of hand") to highlight the divergence between government promises and reality, focusing primarily on emotional criticism and attacks on credibility.

The style is formal and concerned, emphasizing the critical and urgent state of rural road infrastructure. The speaker uses logical arguments (the lack of funding for local government units (LGUs), existing obligations) combined with a social appeal to stress the necessity of these roads for the survival and sustainability of the local population. Furthermore, the opening of the question contains a subtle irony directed at the minister's official title.

The tone is urgent, serious, and consistently critical, stressing that the Pihlakodu case is "a matter of national dignity." The speaker employs both emotional appeals (avoiding suffering, fear for one's parents) and logical and procedural arguments (the chain of responsibility, legislation, bureaucracy). He repeatedly emphasizes the core issue of assigning accountability to avoid a situation where "everyone is responsible, but in reality, no one is."