By Plenary Sessions: Aleksandr Tšaplõgin

The rhetorical style is formal and courteous, addressing the respected Speaker of the Session, the Minister, and colleagues. The tone is critical yet constructive, emphasizing the reasonableness and acceptability of the proposed alternatives to the Estonian people. Logical appeals are employed to contrast punitive taxation (such as taxing soda consumption) with supportive policies (such as promoting a healthy lifestyle).

The style is direct, demanding, and confrontational, especially in the second question, which presents a sharp accusation of lying. Logical argumentation is used, comparing the growth of defense expenditures (200 million) with the budget deficit (1.2 billion) to emphasize the government's incompetence.

The rhetorical style is highly confrontational, accusatory, and emotional. It employs strong moral appeals and direct accusations ("You are robbing the poor," "Aren't you ashamed?"). The tone is sharp and critical, focusing primarily on ethical responsibility and the breaking of promises.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotional, utilizing direct accusations ("you are robbing the poor"). The speaker contrasts the minister's optimistic vision with their own negative data, concluding with a sharp rhetorical question regarding the minister's morality ("Aren't you ashamed?").

The rhetorical style is formal, yet incisive and critical, utilizing data and statistics to support its arguments. Logical appeals are favored, and challenging rhetorical questions are posed to highlight government inefficiency and demand solutions. When addressing the issue of teacher shortages, the tone is urgent.

The rhetorical style is critical and urgent, warning of a serious nationwide problem caused by e-voting. The speaker employs logical arguments, contrasting the clarity of physical voting with the deficiencies of the electronic system. The tone is formal and direct, stressing that ignoring the issue will not resolve it.

The rhetorical style is confrontational and accusatory, employing sharp rhetorical questions to cast doubt on the government's motives and the logic of its policies. The tone is emotionally charged and direct, implying political corruption (a fear of sponsors) specifically regarding the Reform Party.

The style is formal (addressing the esteemed Prime Minister), yet the tone is sharply critical and provocative. Logical arguments are employed (the separation of church and state), as well as emotional appeals (security risk, support for Putin). The third address levels an accusation of political hypocrisy and demands that the government clarify its reasoning.

The rhetorical style is formal and question-driven, addressing the session chair and the minister respectfully. The tone is probing and concerned, focusing on the logical gathering of data and the determination of specific facts. Direct and concise questions are employed, avoiding emotional or complex appeals.

The rhetorical style is formal and respectful, employing the addresses "Esteemed Chairman of the Session" and "Esteemed Minister." The tone is critical and skeptical, focusing on logical inquiries and demanding clarity, particularly concerning the objectives of political statements. Contrast is utilized (punishing vs. helping), and the establishment of truth is demanded.