By Plenary Sessions: Lauri Laats

A combative and critical tone; uses rhetorical questions and the "carrot and stick" metaphor; emphasizes logical reasoning and the need for analysis.

The tone is critical, somewhat aggressive, and emotional; it utilizes rhetorical questions and strongly accusatory statements ("this is a big joke," "an internal coalition game"); it constructs a critical and provocative argument by combining the citation of facts and examples.

Speaks conversationally and persuasively, combining an emphasis on traditional values with technical references. They use examples and visual evidence (verification of paper ballots) and occasionally employ humor. The tone is critical, but they attempt to adhere to the established legal framework.

The tone is primarily critically constructive and focused on posing questions; it utilizes fact- and example-based argumentation and is delivered in a formal, parliamentary tone. It employs subtle allusions and analogies (such as the alcohol excise duty) and presents several inquiries designed to elicit a response and debate, rather than a directive.

A somewhat data-centric and critical tone, supplemented by unambiguously vivid, specific examples and the use of numerical comparisons. It uses rhetorical questions and a decisive style, emphasizing quick solutions and flexibility. At the same time, the second address concluded with a friendly, questioning tone, highlighting the need for cooperation and the positive impact on sports development. Overall, it is a mix of solid form and emotional, meaningful argumentation.

A formal and respectful tone; utilizes structured questions and references to economic concepts. The objective is the clarification of arguments through questioning, rather than emotional rhetoric.