By Plenary Sessions: Mart Maastik

The rhetorical style is formal and argumentative, employing logical appeals and factual comparisons, particularly drawing on the example of Finland. The tone is one of concern and persuasion, stressing the fundamental pillars of democracy and the importance of trust. The speaker utilizes a rhetorical question (why doesn't Finland use it?) and irony, referencing "democratic" nations like Venezuela and Russia that use e-voting, alongside Estonia.

The rhetorical style is critical and confident, initially combining sarcasm (the suggestion of offering home accommodation to prisoners) with serious and logical political argumentation. The speaker poses direct questions and appeals to the opponents' earlier stated principles to highlight the political inconsistency. The tone is formal, yet sharp.

The style is direct, sharp, and confrontational, especially in the follow-up remarks, where both the presiding officer and the prime minister are criticized. A logical appeal is employed, highlighting the inconsistency between the government's previous and current stances regarding China. In the rejoinder, the tone is demanding, criticizing the presiding officer for the time spent and demanding an apology from the prime minister.