By Plenary Sessions: Jaak Valge

The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, posing a direct and challenging question that calls into doubt the economic claims made by the previous speaker. A logical appeal is employed, contrasting numerical gain (GDP) with real social impact (standard of living).

The rhetorical style is critical, principled, and at times very sharp, combining logical argumentation (labor shortage, healthcare) with strong emotional appeals (reputational damage, a shocking plan). The speaker uses direct questions and accuses the government of treating Estonian citizens like subjects or serfs. He emphasizes that his stance is based on personal principles, not political affiliation.

The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and direct, posing a question to the Chancellor of Justice to clarify legal details. Although precise legal terminology is used, the argumentation is strongly supported by emotional concern over the infringement of the sense of justice.

The style is formal, respectful, and analytical, including addresses to the Chair and the Minister. The speaker employs an unusual conciliatory opening, acknowledging the persuasiveness of the opposing side's argumentation, despite being in opposition themselves. They then proceed to present specific political demands, focusing on the logical question regarding the action plan.

The rhetorical style is critical, insistent, and demands accountability, emphasizing that "arbitrariness continues" and "nothing has changed." A formal address is used, but the content is direct, focusing on criticizing the minister's inaction.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, forceful, and confrontational, particularly concerning government policies. The speaker combines logical arguments with extensive use of data, but frames them within a strong national and constitutional context. He uses direct address and rhetorical questions to underscore the validity of his positions and casts doubt on the reliability of the opposing side's data.

The discourse is predominantly critical and combative, employing strong judgments like "gigantomaniacal" and "neocolonialist project." The style is formal, yet it also contains emotional appeals ("Estonian men and Estonian women") and accusations, such as the coalition taking pleasure in violating the rules of procedure. The appeals are a blend of logical arguments (statistics, legal references) and moral/national calls to action (defending parliamentarism and the honor of Estonia).