By Plenary Sessions: Anti Haugas

The rhetorical style is formal, logical, and geared towards persuasion, emphasizing the urgency of achieving legal clarity. It utilizes practical and emotionally charged examples (e.g., child abduction, Lithuanian car thieves) to illustrate the necessity of the draft legislation. When responding to questions, the speaker maintains a defensive yet open tone, attempting to balance the restriction of rights against the benefits of security.

The style is inquisitive and analytical, relying heavily on real-life examples (a mother with small children and a student) to highlight the legal issue. The discourse is formal and focuses on a logical argument concerning the shortcomings of the current regulation, avoiding emotional appeals.

The style is analytical and pragmatic, concentrating on the economic and social impact of political decisions. A critical yet indirect tone is employed concerning the opponent's ideological direction, specifically referencing Tanel Kiik’s "ideological wandering." The argument relies on the Swedish example as a cautionary case study to justify Estonia's pragmatic approach.

The rhetorical style is analytical and logical, focusing on the structural breakdown of problems and the provision of solutions. The speaker draws parallels from the business sector to support the argument and emphasizes procedural correctness, all while maintaining a formal and professional tone. The appeal is aimed at rationality and fair tax collection.