By Plenary Sessions: Urmas Kruuse

The rhetorical style is formal and respectful, addressing the esteemed Chair and the honorable Rapporteur. The first speech is informative and neutral, focusing on procedural facts and timelines. The second speech is analytical and concerned, seeking an evaluation of the negative repercussions of political decisions, relying on logical arguments regarding economic damage.

The rhetorical style is analytical and questioning, focusing on challenging the efficiency and fairness of existing systems (funding, school organization). The speaker employs logical arguments, poses direct questions, and highlights contrasts (elite sport vs. mass sport, Norway vs. Duplantis). The tone is formal, but it also incorporates philosophical discussions regarding the role of movement.

The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, but includes sharp criticism and irony directed at the comparisons presented by the speaker. Logical appeals are employed, demanding specific data regarding the bill's impact on the Estonian people and economy. The tone is interrogative and demanding, emphasizing the speaker's inadequate preparation.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and focused on specific questions, respectfully addressing the rapporteur ("Honorable Rapporteur"). The speaker employs logical arguments, concentrating on the interpretation of current law and the actual impact of the proposals. The tone is critical yet constructive, highlighting the necessity of adopting a comprehensive approach.

The style is formal and analytical, addressing the esteemed Presiding Officer and the Ministers. The speaker employs rhetorical questions to challenge the West's strategic perception and the speed of its actions. The tone is urgent and concerned, focusing on logical arguments, such as the low economic cost of supporting Ukraine.