By Plenary Sessions: Arvo Aller

The rhetorical style is two-part: initially short, direct, and assertive, but it concludes with an unexpected transition to a solemn and personal tone. Simple language is used, along with a poem welcoming the new year, which lends the address an emotional and informal conclusion.

The style is formal, detailed, and critically analytical, respectfully addressing both the chairman of the session and the minister. Focus is placed on logical arguments, citing the explanatory memorandum and regulations, and rhetorical questions are employed to challenge the policy's justifications. The overall tone is one of concern and caution regarding the injustice and bureaucracy arising for agricultural producers.

The rhetorical style is critical and interrogative, repeatedly employing rhetorical questions to highlight the contradictions and illogic inherent in the presenter's positions. The tone is concerned and demanding, stressing the security policy and social importance of regional presence. The speaker uses a logical appeal, contrasting virtual solutions (video, AI) with the necessity of physical presence.

The tone is analytical, critical, and occasionally sharp, particularly concerning the lack of consistency in legislation. The speaker poses direct and detailed questions to the presenters, demanding justifications and explanations. In the lengthy speech, he employs both logical argumentation (constitutional contradictions, lack of a compensation mechanism) and emotional appeal (jobs, the sensitive region of Ida-Virumaa).

The rhetorical style is serious, concerned, and critical, emphasizing a direct threat to Estonian security. Both logical arguments—based on the testimonies of military experts and international examples (Sweden)—and emotional appeals are employed. The second speech focuses on people's health and living environment, linking social problems (out-migration) with a decline in national defense capabilities.

The tone is critical and concerned, highlighting the "drastic changes" proposed by the bills and the creation of social problems. Both logical appeals (such as funding inequality) and emotional accusations are employed, claiming the government is "strangling" business. The style is formal, yet it incorporates sharp metaphors (e.g., the government lives in a "silo").

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, emotional, and forceful, expressing deep disappointment over the reintroduction of the bill in its identical form. Strong value judgments and moralizing language are employed, referring to child abusers as "crazies" and "pedophiles." The speaker addresses colleagues as "fellow combatants" and concludes with a direct appeal to vote against the law.

The rhetorical style is critical and urgent, demanding quicker decision-making and clarity from the minister. The appeal is primarily logical and procedural, focusing on deadlines, the public procurement process, and the inefficiency of administrative management. The speaker uses detailed examples (sowing cycles) to support their arguments.