By Plenary Sessions: Arvo Aller

The rhetorical style is critical and analytical, focusing on procedural errors in the legislative process and the specific wording of the draft bill. Logical arguments are employed, referencing concrete figures (520,000 landowners) and the text of the explanatory memorandum, blending this with an emotional appeal concerning food security and the burden placed upon private property owners. The speaker is direct and requests additional time from the session chair.

The rhetorical style is critical, direct, and procedural, focusing on facts and contradictions found in official statements. The speaker poses pointed questions, demanding accountability and clarification regarding both the border violation and the deficiencies in the emergency notification system. He uses strong language, referring to the conduct of the Russian border guards as "hooligans."

The rhetorical style is formal, yet sharply interrogative and skeptical, demanding specific figures and answers. Logical appeals are employed to highlight the negative impact of the policy on pensioners. Sarcasm is also present, referencing the competence of the opposing party's former ministers.

The speaker's rhetorical style is critical, skeptical, and at times ironic, using dismissive phrases like "beautiful numbers" and "charade." The appeal is primarily logical and fact-based, focusing on policy inconsistencies, the shortcomings of the draft law, and practical negative consequences. The overall tone is distrustful and accusatory regarding the government's actions.

The rhetorical style is combative, urgent, and directly challenging, calling into question the currency and accuracy of government data ("I don't know which day's memo you are reading there"). The style is predominantly logical and data-driven, relying on statistics and journalistic sources. However, sharp language is also employed, referencing an emotional issue and a potential conflict of interest within the ministry.

The rhetorical style is analytical and inquisitive, expressing confusion and skepticism regarding the regulations presented ("Well, now things are getting confusing"). The speaker employs formal language and relies on logical arguments, demanding clarification from the minister concerning the practical application of the policy and the technical details.

The style is critical and direct, beginning with the acknowledgement that no answer was received. The speaker employs a series of questions to shift attention from the specific incident to a wider, socially sensitive security threat. The appeal is a blend of logical concern (a greater security threat) and emotional concern (the sense of security among the elderly).

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and direct, especially during the no-confidence debate, where sharp questions and rhetorical challenges are employed ("Is this the future Estonian school, then?"). Emphasis is placed on the minister's avoidance of responsibility and distancing himself from the problems. The appeals are rather logical and fact-based, referring to specific events (the blunder of April 9) and organizations (the Estonian Association of Cities and Municipalities).

The rhetorical style is combative and critical, employing strong metaphors such as "steamroller" and labeling the replacement of physical education "complete nonsense." The appeal is primarily logical and data-driven, highlighting the cumulative impact of taxes and the irrationality of administrative costs. Although the tone is formal, the content is intensely critical of the government and its procedural actions.