By Plenary Sessions: Raimond Kaljulaid

The rhetorical style is a blend of sharp political attack and detailed, data-driven analysis. Both emotional appeals (such as leaving frontline workers "out in the rain") and ironic metaphors (like the Center Party's "lemonade machine") are utilized. The tone is predominantly critical and at times combative, particularly concerning the fiscal policies of the Center Party and right-wing parties, though one speech also offered procedural recognition to the Minister of the Interior.

The rhetorical style is formal, serious, and urgent, emphasizing the life-saving nature of the subject matter and the gravity of the security threats. It employs both logical argumentation (changes necessitated by risks, the significance of the time factor) and emotional appeal (the saving of human lives and family members). The speaker expresses appreciation for the drafters of the bill and their colleagues.

The rhetorical style is critical, substantive, and demanding, emphasizing the weakness of parliamentary oversight and the government's avoidance of responsibility. The appeals are primarily logical and fact-based, referencing specific dates, laws, and documents (e.g., the National Audit Office report). The tone is occasionally amusing (a reference to the chancellor's response regarding accountability), but is generally sharp and accusatory.

The rhetorical style is formal, polite, and analytical, beginning with praise for the presenter ("Excellent presentation!"). The tone is inquisitive and logical, focusing on economic facts and consequences rather than emotions.

The rhetorical style is critical, analytical, and at times ironic, particularly when ridiculing the minister's alleged conviction (the "120 percent" claim). The speaker employs logical arguments, linking calculation errors directly to real financial costs (borrowed funds and interest). He criticizes the "silo" format, where the executive branch leaves the chamber, and urges his colleagues to take an active interest in the issues at hand.

The rhetorical style is analytical, rigorous, and logic-driven, stressing the necessity of concrete figures and metrics over emotional assessments. Comparative examples (e.g., the private sector, Nordic countries, Ukraine) are employed to logically substantiate the arguments. The tone remains formal and respectful, yet the questions are designed to elicit specific responses.

The style of discourse is formal, critical, and often pressing, emphasizing the severity of the problems and the potential damage to the state's reputation or security. It utilizes both logical arguments (referencing laws and audits) and emotional appeal (citing the safety of children and the threat to the reputation of the Riigikogu), frequently posing rhetorical questions to demand accountability.