By Plenary Sessions: Riina Solman

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and questioning, casting doubt on the minister's optimism and capacity for action. Logical arguments (the impact of taxes on families) and rhetorical questions are employed to challenge the government's future plans and demand concrete steps ("what can you actually accomplish from this podium besides just talking").

The style is formal and respectful when addressing the Vice-Chairman of the Riigikogu and the rapporteur, but the substance is critical and direct concerning the Minister of Foreign Affairs' actions. A personal historical example and a strong analogy are employed, framed within the context of Tallinn and citizens of the Russian Federation, to underscore questions of sovereignty. The tone is analytical and highlights ministerial accountability.

The style is sharp, critical, and emotionally charged, employing strong contrasts and direct accusations regarding the government's hostility toward families. The speaker draws historical comparisons (for example, the red Soviet state) in the context of restricting freedom of choice. The tone is urgent, emphasizing the creation of insecurity within families and highlighting the critical nature of the demographic situation.

The rhetorical style is highly combative and accusatory, employing powerful emotional appeals (recklessness, sadness, shame) and sharp accusations of inciting class hatred. The speaker attacks the opponent’s communication and motives, labeling it "the art of signaling" and a "textbook example of divide and conquer." Strong contrasting is utilized, for instance, by equating mothers who have lost their insurance with the homeless.

The address is highly respectful and formal, employing an appreciative tone regarding the work and report of the Chancellor of Justice. The style leans toward being value-based and reflective, emphasizing dignity and universal human relations, and concludes with specific questions aimed at self-criticism and improvement.

The speaker's rhetorical style is insistent and highly critical, employing strong emotional appeals to characterize the actions of political opponents (e.g., inciting class antagonism, labeling mothers as "eaters of dirt bread"). They utilize logical arguments (demographic trends, a constitutional provision) alongside metaphors ("an elephant in a china shop," "the art of signaling"). The tone is formal, yet the substance is sharp and accusatory regarding the government's actions.

The style is formal and analytical, focusing on logical and procedural arguments (good legislative practice, bureaucratic hurdles). Although the speaker sharply criticizes the ministry's work and the lack of adequate engagement, he addresses the Minister personally and respectfully, referring to him as a "good minister" and a "diligent worker," while simultaneously offering encouragement and advice. The tone is critical, yet constructive.