By Plenary Sessions: Maria Jufereva-Skuratovski

The rhetorical style is reactive and argumentative, initiated by the necessity of presenting counterarguments and correcting factual inaccuracies. The tone is one of concern, particularly regarding Henn Põlluaas's assertions, which generated "very great concern" over the lack of public trust in the state. Both ideological appeals (faith in people) and factual corrections (Lasnamäe flags) are employed.

The style is predominantly formal and businesslike; the first speaker uses neutral, procedural language, typical of a committee rapporteur. The second speaker is questioning and direct, posing clear questions that demonstrate an interest in the details.

The rhetorical style is analytical and critical, focusing on logical arguments and statistical data, particularly concerning tax revenue. The opposition's draft bill is branded as a populist and "Robin Hood-esque" idea, which is described as brief and superficial. Contrasting examples are employed (Estonia's stability versus Lithuania's negative consequences), and warnings are issued about long-term risks, all while maintaining a formal tone.

The rhetorical style is formal and concerned, emphasizing the seriousness of security threats and the importance of historical lessons. A philosophical approach is employed, linking current events to historical patterns and posing questions aimed at highlighting collective responsibility.