By Plenary Sessions: Mart Maastik

The rhetoric is predominantly critical and skeptical, particularly concerning mobile voting (m-elections). Logical arguments and technical analogies (such as 5G/Huawei and the Lufthansa hack) are employed to highlight security risks. In contrast, the discussion surrounding energy is highly formal, structured, and detailed, presenting specific, point-by-point demands and prerequisites for developing an action plan. The overall tone is professional and matter-of-fact, though it becomes worried and urgent when addressing m-elections.

The rhetorical style is analytical and critical, employing logical arguments and practical metaphors ("There is no point spitting into the old well until the new one has been dug"). The tone is one of concern, emphasizing the importance of caution and crisis preparedness, while simultaneously raising pointed questions regarding the quality of the draft legislation.

The style is predominantly formal and argumentative, relying on technical details (energy accounting) and journalistic data (Russian business). Both logical appeal (proposals for improving UT) and an urgent tone are utilized, emphasizing the detrimental effects of unethical business practices and the risk of unhealthy competition emerging. Rhetorical questions are also employed to draw attention to legislative shortcomings, such as the available avenues for appeal following administrative court decisions.

The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and demanding, focusing heavily on logical appeals and facts. The speaker poses questions that challenge the ministers' assertions, demanding concrete answers (for instance, requesting to see the security analysis or asking for a clear definition of 'top specialists'). The tone remains skeptical, particularly concerning immigration, where the adequacy of the government's narrative is seriously questioned.

The rhetorical style is formal, yet sharply critical and questioning, employing rhetorical questions to cast doubt on government policy. The speaker levels direct accusations, suggesting that tax hikes are the reason people are forced to take out quick loans, and uses the phrase "that's where the body is buried."

The rhetorical style is direct, confrontational, and passionate, incorporating both personal addresses aimed at the minister and sharp criticism. It employs strong emotional appeals (such as the extinction of the state or the hatred of children) and contrasts government role models with traditional values (the proud mother/father).

The rhetorical style is confrontational and ironic, using a provocative comparison ("born into the wrong body") to criticize Valdo Randpere and his party. The tone is formal (addressing the vice-chairman) but quickly becomes personal and sarcastic. The appeal is aimed at questioning the opponent's sincerity and motivation.

The rhetorical style is formal and respectful, addressing both the presiding officer and the minister ("Thank you, Mr. Chairman! Esteemed Minister!"). The tone is direct and focuses on the logical need for information, presenting sequential questions concerning the occurrence and the outcomes of the consultation.

The rhetorical style is passionate, at times irritated, and cautionary, employing strong emotional appeals (a sense of security, the demise of the nation-state). Direct addresses to the Prime Minister are used, alongside dramatic comparisons (the Swedish path, ghettoization, bombs exploding) to underscore the seriousness and urgency of the situation.