By Plenary Sessions: Arvo Aller

The style is predominantly serious and critical, especially concerning the rejection of opposition bills, but remains polite initially (Thank you, esteemed Chair of the session!). Both logical arguments (the necessity of legislative amendments to ensure security) and emotional appeals (to show solidarity with farmers and stand up for Estonian food security) are employed. The closing address is particularly passionate, criticizing the demise of rural life.

The style is formal, direct, and highly concise, suitable for introducing a legislative initiative to the plenary session. The speaker uses polite forms of address ("Esteemed Deputy Speaker of the Riigikogu! Dear colleagues!") and presents logical, policy-based arguments. Emotional appeals or narratives are absent; the focus is strictly on the goals of the draft legislation and requesting support.

The style is formal and direct, utilizing addresses directed at the session chairman and the prime minister. The tone is rather concerned and emphasizes the urgency of security matters, focusing on the logical framing of the inquiry regarding the government's plans. The question is posed in a demanding rather than a conciliatory tone.

The tone is critical and concerned, particularly regarding coercive measures and issues of regional inequality. He/She employs both logical argumentation (referencing legislation and financial data) and personal experience as a board member of an apartment association to illustrate the negative impact of the policies. The style is formal, respectfully addressing the presiding officer and the ministers, while simultaneously expressing strong opposition.

The style is formal and procedural, focusing on the presentation of draft legislation and the posing of specific questions to the minister. The arguments are predominantly logical and economically justified, referencing inflation and the public's ability to cope. A defensive and critical tone is also present in defending Parliament's right to ask questions against the presumptions of coalition members.

The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and interrogative, making it suitable for the format of an information session. The tone is concerned and demanding, emphasizing logical argumentation and the government's responsibility for ensuring security and education. In their questions, the speaker relies on specific facts and recent media coverage (e.g., the KAPO notification, news published yesterday).

The rhetorical style is direct, critical, and argumentative, emphasizing the urgency of the topic and the necessity of action. The speaker employs rhetorical questions and contrasts (e.g., the peace of the grave versus the glorification of occupation) to refute the opposing side's justifications. The tone is formal, but sharp and demanding in content.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and confrontational, employing strong and emotionally charged expressions such as "taxing to death" and allusions to the "hushing up" of the investigation. Numerous direct and rhetorical questions are used to challenge the results and motives of the government's policy. At the same time, the speaker ironically points out the presenter's mechanical reading ability.

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, commencing with respectful addresses to the Chair of the session and the presenter. The speaker focuses on logical and procedural deliberation, posing direct questions with the aim of clarifying the validity of competence and avoiding misunderstanding.

The style is formal and respectful, addressing colleagues and the chair of the session. The tone is procedural and includes a subtle element of self-defense regarding the Riigikogu's (Parliament's) workload, stressing that "no one can say we aren't doing our job." Logical arguments and specific numerical references to tax legislation are employed.

The style is formal and analytical, beginning with a polite greeting directed at the Minister and the Chair of the session. The speaker employs logical argumentation, posing hypothetical questions ("is it not possible that we might then face a situation where...") to highlight procedural risks and the lack of transparency.