By Plenary Sessions: Tõnis Lukas

The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, balancing procedural observations (the rationale behind posing the question) with substantive criticism. Strong, yet politically charged terms such as "faithlessness" are employed, and logical connections between policy and regional consequences are emphasized. The tone is critical yet respectful, repeatedly calling upon the Prime Minister with the demand that he take these matters under his personal control.

The style is formal, serious, and passionate, especially when addressing historical themes, utilizing strong emotional appeals regarding the commemoration of heroes and national dignity. On the topic of security, the tone is worried, and questions are directed straight to the minister, demanding specific threat assessments. The speaker uses a detailed historical narrative to justify their political demands.

The rhetorical style is questioning and confrontational, posing sharp questions to the presenter and casting doubt on the blind trust placed in the government. Logical argumentation is employed, based on the shifting nature of the facts (economic forecasts), to establish an urgent and critical tone.

The rhetorical style is interrogative and challenging, aimed directly at casting doubt on the minister's logic. Formal language and logical appeal are employed, pitting opposing social groups (workers versus childcare providers) against one another in the context of future demands.

The style is sharp, challenging, and concerned, posing direct questions to the prime minister regarding the logic of the government's migration policy. Both political facts and statistics are used, as well as strong value-based arguments that emphasize the threat to the Estonian people, language, and security. It concludes with an emotional appeal, asking why the government is creating a burden for the country.

The rhetorical style is interrogative and skeptical, employing an ironic tone when addressing the minister and referring to the zero budget as a "magic word." A critical, slightly colloquial term, "sebimine" (busywork/faffing), is used to emphasize the lack of substance and inefficiency inherent in the administrative process. The argumentation is logical, focusing on the absence of actual costs and savings.