By Plenary Sessions: Aivar Kokk

The rhetorical style is analytical, questioning, and procedural, aimed at obtaining clarifications from the commission regarding the technical and economic aspects of the draft legislation. Logical argumentation is employed, referencing previous debates and practical examples (Sweden), in order to highlight the deficiencies of the regulation. The tone is formal and fact-focused.

The rhetorical style is critical, demanding, and at times didactic, addressing the minister with the aim of seeking clarification and providing instruction. The speech is highly logical and data-driven, focusing on highlighting procedural and substantive deficiencies in the budget documents. The tone is formal, yet it conveys dissatisfaction regarding the lack of responses.

The tone is passionate, direct, and at times frustrated, using vernacular and emotional expressions such as "jura" (nonsense/crap) and "jabur" (absurd/silly). The style is a blend of logical argumentation (analysis of costs and fines) and personal examples (his logo, "Oma mees Toompeal" [His own man on Toompea], and the pen lying on the desk). He employs numerous rhetorical questions to highlight the absurdity of the regulation, while simultaneously attempting to remain conciliatory towards the Minister.

The tone is predominantly critical, demanding, and blunt, repeatedly expressing distrust regarding the competence of the minister and the government ("I regret, esteemed minister, that you are unable to answer the questions"). It employs numerous rhetorical questions and direct accusations of scheming and non-transparent distribution of funds ("black hole"). The style is a blend of logical appeal (specific figures and budget structure) and emotional appeal (the closure of regional institutions).

The tone is extremely combative, critical, and accusatory, employing strong emotional appeals and blunt language (e.g., "lies," "shame on you," "dear friends/pals"). The rhetoric centers on highlighting the government's injustice and incompetence, contrasting the resources available to the wealthy with the plight of lower-income individuals. The style is direct and passionate, underscoring the social and economic impact of political decisions.

The style is critical and direct, beginning with a sharp accusation aimed at the government concerning the debt burden. It utilizes both logical appeals (specific budgetary issues) and a personal juxtaposition with the minister's previous recommendations on saving ("buy canned goods"). The tone is formal, yet it contains a sharp political attack.

The tone is predominantly combative, critical, and accusatory, particularly regarding the government's economic competence and integrity. It emphasizes logical appeals, relying on facts, transcripts, and the text of the explanatory memorandum, but also employs emotional language ("hostile bill"). It repeatedly reiterates its party's clear positions and promises.