By Plenary Sessions: Anti Allas

The speech is formal and respectful toward the presenter, using the phrase "sincere thanks," but becomes emotional and sharp when criticizing the coalition. A moral appeal is employed, referencing the "hardened hearts" of the coalition politicians. The style balances the emotional attack with the presentation of a specific and technical economic issue.

The style is formal, analytical, and demanding, emphasizing the critical crossroads facing Estonia and the necessity of strategic action. Logical appeals are employed, focusing on political priorities and the requirement to ensure security. The speaker remains courteous toward colleagues but cautions against adopting a populist approach concerning funding.

The rhetorical style is formal, yet simultaneously urgent and demanding, highlighting the security threat (Russia’s full-scale war). It employs both emotional appeals (children and students traveling through Russian territory) and concrete political questions concerning the government’s inaction. The tone is critical, though it becomes mildly hopeful in the second speech ("better late than never").

The style is formal and interrogative, directly addressing the presiding officer and the minister. A logical appeal is employed, detailing a specific functional shortcoming that impacts the daily lives of citizens. The tone is one of concern, but the objective remains the identification of a practical budgetary solution.

The style is predominantly formal and analytical, especially when discussing political issues (local government funding, taxes), demanding substantive responses from the minister. However, in personal confrontations (with colleague Rain Epler), the tone becomes sharp and accusatory, describing the opponent’s behavior as unseemly and inept. A family analogy is used for clarification to emphasize the state's obligation to treat all regions equally.

The rhetorical style is critical, cautionary, and direct, emphasizing the urgency of the situation ("this knowledge will soon explode"). Both emotional appeals (inequality, a gift to the wealthier) and logical demands regarding specific budget figures and the classification of investments are employed. The speaker demands a complete and specific answer from the minister.

The rhetorical style is critical, direct, and highly argumentative, employing strong metaphors (e.g., "cutting the tail off piece by piece") and emphasizing honesty when addressing difficult subjects. The speaker contrasts their position with populism, focusing on logical arguments concerning state debt and underfunding. They offer categorical rebuttals to the opponents' false assertions.