By Plenary Sessions: Andre Hanimägi

The rhetorical style is sharp, interrogative, and critical, repeatedly employing rhetorical questions to cast doubt on the opposing side's arguments ("Do you not trust people enough with their own choices?"). The tone is logical and focuses on the soundness of the policy, while simultaneously emphasizing a strong belief in the wisdom of the people. The speaker uses comparisons (political parties vs. the Defence Forces) to illustrate their positions.

The style is predominantly analytical and formal, but it shifts to a passionate tone when criticizing previous project management, which is described as “utterly embarrassing” and inadequate in its handling of taxpayer money. Logical arguments are employed to stress the importance of flexibility, cost savings, and the role of the media. The speaker utilizes rhetorical questions and contrasts (e.g., back door versus parallel door) to clarify their stance.

The style is emotional and personal, using a narrative (a child, the morning of February 24th, the taste of tears in their mouth) to emphasize the seriousness of the situation. The tone is serious and concerned, balancing personal feeling with the raising of a direct political question regarding humanitarian aid.

The speaker's rhetorical style is analytical, highly detailed, and critical, particularly concerning the activities of banks, yet simultaneously measured when discussing state policy. He/She relies heavily on logical arguments and data, citing statistics from the Bank of Estonia and various analyses. The tone is formal but also incorporates emotional elements, referencing the public outrage and furore that has emerged within society.