By Plenary Sessions: Lauri Läänemets

The speech is very combative in tone, highly moral, and emotionally charged, utilizing strong contrasts (the rich vs the poor, heroes vs injustice). The speaker balances statistical data with personal stories (a shop assistant earning a 900-euro salary, a caregiver for a severely disabled child) and addresses colleagues from the Reform Party directly, thereby creating a sense of social and political urgency.

The rhetorical style is formal, serious, and emphasizes both the urgency and the historical importance of the topic. A narrative element (the recommendation of the Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs) is used to justify the necessity of the policy and lend it emotional weight. The speaker expresses regret regarding the delay in passing the legislation but remains hopeful about the final outcome.

The rhetorical style is highly aggressive, urgent, and accusatory, employing direct accusations against the Prime Minister for lying to Parliament. The tone is critical and emotionally intense, labeling the situation "senseless" and "illogical." Although the delivery is emotional, the arguments are supported by concrete facts and numerical comparisons.

The rhetoric is predominantly combative, critical, and insistent, especially when addressing the Prime Minister, who is accused of evading answers and shirking responsibility. Both emotional appeals (examples of poor families and their hardships) and logical arguments and specific figures are utilized (600 specialist doctor appointments, 59% of the wealth). The debate participants are confrontational and demand substantive answers.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and confrontational, emphasizing philosophical differences with the government and posing repeated questions to the Prime Minister. The speaker uses contrasting examples (the rich versus the poor) and numerical comparisons to highlight injustice, while maintaining the formal language of the Riigikogu information session. The tone is accusatory, pointing to the government's conscious choices to prioritize the wealthier segment of society.

The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and demanding, posing pointed questions to ministers, including insisting on a specific "yes or no" answer regarding police procedures. The appeal itself is highly logical and focuses on resolving systemic issues (such as educational inequality and housing shortages), proposing concrete political mechanisms.

The tone is sharp, demanding, and confrontational, repeatedly accusing the minister of "completely missing the point" and the government of "a lack of critical thinking." The speaker employs logical contrasts (an industrial building versus an apartment building; a weekday holiday versus a holiday shifted from the weekend) to highlight the illogical nature of the government's positions. The style is formal yet emotionally charged, urgently demanding the disclosure of the content of the government's discussion arguments.

The speaker’s style is passionate, direct, and at times sharply confrontational, particularly when addressing the Reform Party. He employs powerful emotional and value-based appeals (referencing Aili, a resident of Türi), contrasting human life with mere numbers on an Excel spreadsheet. In conclusion, he calls for honesty and action, rather than just nagging.

The style is urgent, direct, and confrontational, especially when criticizing the government and raising procedural issues. Both logical arguments (economic impacts, the content of the bill) and strong emotional language are employed, referencing the absurdity of the budget situation and the whiff of corruption surrounding the Competition Act. Repeated demands are made regarding the organization of parliamentary work and ministerial accountability.