By Plenary Sessions: Arvo Aller

The style is formal and appreciative towards the presenter, describing the discussion as "enjoyable" and "eye-opening." The speaker uses a rhetorical question ("How far do you think we can take this?") to emphasize the ambition and scope of the proposal. The tone is generally positive and professional.

The rhetorical style is formal, respectful, and analytical, addressing the "Esteemed Speaker of the Riigikogu" and the "Dear Minister." The speaker poses direct and logical questions aimed at exposing loopholes and ambiguities in the draft legislation, focusing strictly on facts and procedures, without resorting to emotional appeals.

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and emotional, using examples of extreme crimes (rape, death) committed against vulnerable individuals to emphasize the government's inaction. The speaker poses questions directly to the Prime Minister, calling into question the government’s promises regarding the protection of the weakest members of society. The tone is confrontational and urgently demands answers.

The rhetorical style is critical and at times combative, accusing the ruling powers of hostility towards the populace and employing steamroller tactics against the opposition's sound initiatives. Both logical arguments (references to the experiences and studies of other countries) and emotional appeals are utilized, emphasizing consumers' hardships and the necessity of affording the cost of basic needs. The tone is formal yet sharp, while simultaneously offering the coalition assistance in implementing the tax reduction.

The style is analytical and critical, concentrating on highlighting past political errors and the inconsistencies of other parties, particularly concerning the activities of Isamaa. The address is formal and logical, drawing on historical facts and cause-and-effect arguments, such as those related to the economic effects of phasing out oil shale. The tone carries a moderate sense of urgency, stressing the necessity of identifying and correcting current constraints.

The rhetorical style is inquisitive and critical, employing rhetorical questions to call into question the expediency of the ministry's activities ("is this even necessary"). The tone is demanding, stressing the expectation that things will improve and procedures will become fairer and transparent to the public.

The rhetorical style is factual, concerned, and direct, emphasizing the seriousness of the problem and the need for a swift solution. The speaker relies heavily on logical arguments and statistical data to illustrate the economic and ecological damage. The tone is formal, presenting eight structured questions to the minister and seeking clarification regarding the current hunting restrictions.

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, respectfully addressing both the session chairman and the minister. Rhetorical questions ("Do I understand correctly...?") are repeatedly employed to underscore potential dangers and extreme negative consequences. The tone is cautious and apprehensive, pointing to the risk of a surveillance society and a police state emerging.

The speaker's style is critical and skeptical, characterizing the draft bill as a substitute activity. He employs logical appeals, repeatedly demanding comparative data on the economic performance of neighboring countries. The tone toward the Minister is overtly critical, referring to him as being "stuck" or "locked in" and expressing the desire for his resignation.