By Plenary Sessions: Mart Maastik

The speaker's rhetorical style is critical and insistent, stressing the loss of Estonian state independence and incompetent decisions ("foolish goals"). He/She uses logical arguments and economic warnings (levies amounting to billions) coupled with an emotional appeal for the use of common sense. The tone is formal, yet it includes sharp accusations regarding the state's failure.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, emotional, and urgent, expressing shock and labeling the topic as "absurdity" and "extremely sad." Strong analogies are employed (Soviet-era corn cultivation, quack healers, climate change skeptics), and warnings are issued regarding social consequences (psychological problems and surgeries among young girls). The style remains formal, yet its content is sharply critical of the minister and the prevailing ideology.

The style is direct, interrogative, and critical, drawing on both personal experience (receiving invoices in the name of a private individual and a company) and political accusation. The speaker employs sharp language, asserting that the tax's goal is 'simply to fleece the populace.' Colleagues are addressed directly ('Dear Aivar!', 'Dear rapporteur!').

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and confrontational, utilizing sarcasm (referencing the prime minister's earlier statement, "it is hard to be stupid") and direct accusations (sheer idiocy regarding the Nordica decision). The speaker employs examples drawn from both the media and everyday life, as well as technical facts, to support their positions, aiming to establish a link between political responsibility and foolishness.

The rhetorical style is formal, yet sharply interrogative and confrontational. The speaker employs a logical appeal, contrasting the needs of the Defense Forces with the government's actual expenditures to highlight the disproportionality of imposing the security tax. The tone is direct and demands accountability regarding the justification of the tax burden.

The tone is alarming and urgent, highlighting the gravity of the subject matter and its national significance ("will we survive as Estonians"). The style is a blend of emotional appeals (the sanctity of motherhood) and logical comparisons (national defense versus the birth rate). Strong value judgments are employed, particularly in the criticism leveled at media role models and non-traditional family structures.

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, posing several pointed questions to the rapporteur regarding the implementation and scope of the draft bill. The tone is cautious and critical, emphasizing logical gaps within the oversight system and demanding a broader justification for the exceptional treatment afforded to the Riigikogu. The speaker utilizes logical argumentation, citing, for instance, a criminal case initiated against a member of the Riigikogu.