By Plenary Sessions: Mart Maastik

The rhetorical style is critical, pressing, and admonishing, repeatedly emphasizing ill-considered decisions and the "foolish state of affairs." The speaker uses logical arguments and real-life analogies (e.g., comparing the situation to a bank loan and a "tightly stretched rubber band") to highlight economic irresponsibility. He calls upon the government to show "a straight back" (i.e., resolve) and make decisions, utilizing an emotional appeal to common sense.

The rhetorical style is critical and realistic, employing economic aphorisms ("there are no free lunches") to bring the hidden costs of policy into focus. The speaker poses direct questions regarding bureaucracy and cost calculations, maintaining a formal and logic-driven tone. A skeptical tone is adopted, casting doubt on the presenter's previous assertions.

The rhetorical style is sharply confrontational and critical, employing emotional and condemnatory phrases such as "tax festival," "chaos," and "stupid investments." The speaker emphasizes the government's unreliability and instability, while simultaneously posing specific questions regarding revenues and plans. He utilizes sharp contrast (for example, the positive connotation of a festival versus tax chaos) to underscore his viewpoints.

The style is formal, courteous, and focused on questions, addressing the esteemed rapporteur. Logical appeals are employed, based on facts (OSCE recommendations) and international comparisons, to underscore the urgency and risks associated with the topic. The tone is one of concern and demands specific answers regarding security measures.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and accusatory, focusing on the contradiction between the minister's words and actions, as well as the inherent hypocrisy. Strong terms such as "catastrophic state" and "lavish spending" are employed to underscore the logical and emotional appeal directed against unreasonable expenditure. The speaker poses direct questions, demanding clarification regarding the contradictory decisions.

The rhetorical style is critical and demanding, presenting a direct challenge to the minister regarding the implementation of the long-term strategy. The speaker uses logical arguments, pointing to specific failures (the detection of drones by a farmer, not the Defense Forces). The tone is urgent, demanding immediate and concrete steps and investments.

The speaker's style is predominantly formal and procedural, especially when introducing bills and parliamentary inquiries, but becomes critical and occasionally sarcastic when criticizing the government's actions and the organization of parliamentary work. He employs sharp phrases ("a grand deception of voters," "a farce") and appeals to logic and statesmanship, demanding an end to time-wasting.