By Plenary Sessions: Arvo Aller

The style is formal, analytical, and critical, often employing logical questioning and highlighting contradictions within the text of the law. Rhetorical questions are utilized to underscore cybersecurity threats and criticize the government's actions, suggesting that the long-term success of the Reform Party may be favorable to the neighboring state. Procedural criticism is also leveled against the rapporteur and the committee.

The rhetorical style is critical and demanding, emphasizing the government's responsibility and inaction. The speaker uses a formal and matter-of-fact tone, posing questions supported by specific facts and figures (e.g., 700 million euros). They also introduce corrections to the minister’s earlier statements in the interest of factual accuracy.

The speaker’s rhetorical style is combative and forceful, employing strong emotional appeals, particularly concerning the plight of the Estonian people and families. He sharply contrasts his party’s concern with the government’s indifference and hostility toward families. The argumentation is a blend of logical economic linkages (VAT versus the final consumer price) and political accusation (the actions of the coalition).

The rhetorical style is sharp, interrogative, and ironic, utilizing the presentation of a dilemma to challenge the government's self-justification. The speaker employs strong accusations, specifically naming a particular minister as "the most hostile towards children and families." The style is formal, yet the substance is emotionally charged and critical.

The rhetorical style is formal, yet frequently confrontational and demanding, particularly when addressing ministers and rapporteurs. Sharp accusations are employed (for instance, describing the Reform Party's actions as "parading in borrowed plumes") and the rapporteur's subjective "perception" is dismissed. Comparative examples (such as national costumes at the Song Festival) are utilized within the context of social issues to bolster logical arguments.

The style is formal and analytical, beginning with polite salutations ("Respected Chairman," "Dear Minister"). The criticism concerning delays in teachers' salaries is sharp and deeply concerned, highlighting the injustice of the situation. Questions regarding the environment and the budget are detailed and technical, focusing on logical justification and the precise clarification of financial figures.

The speaker's rhetorical style is confrontational and persistently interrogative, repeatedly challenging ministers and demanding explanations. He uses many rhetorical questions (e.g., "Why has the government taken from families but not from banks?"). The tone is formal and focuses on political criticism, relying on political arguments rather than emotional appeals.