By Plenary Sessions: Tanel Kiik

They employed an inquisitive and cautious approach, focusing on risk assessment. A technical and objective tone was maintained throughout the discussion.

He/She employed moderate criticism and posed constructive questions. He/She combined arguments concerning security and the economy with a balanced approach.

They employed direct criticism regarding the government's inconsistencies. They combined fact-based arguments with emotional appeals aimed at achieving a fairer tax policy.

The speaker employs a confrontational and accusatory tone, leveling direct accusations against the government. The rhetoric is emotional and critically charged, utilizing phrases like "cranked up the pressure even more" and "What kind of engagement is that?" The style is more attack-oriented than constructive.

Used constructive criticism and specific proposals. Emphasized the need for fairness while maintaining a diplomatic and professional tone.

The speaker employs a direct and critical tone, combining emotional and logical arguments. The rhetoric is formal yet sharp, utilizing concrete examples and personal experience ("I myself once applied for a job"). The speaker stresses the necessity of avoiding demagoguery and demands fact-based answers, using rhetorical questions to undermine the opponent's position.

The speaker employs question-based rhetoric, posing direct and critical questions regarding the government's consistency. The style is polite yet sharp, using formal address such as "respected" and "honored," while simultaneously highlighting sharp contradictions. The speaker combines logical arguments (IQ test results, gender balance statistics) with emotional assessments, labeling the debate as "crude" and "demagogic."