By Plenary Sessions: Vladimir Arhipov

The speaker adopts a polite and constructive tone, always beginning with expressions of gratitude ("Aitäh, hea istungi juhataja!"). They pose questions systematically and logically, employing both emotional ("mul on siiralt hea meel") and rational arguments. The style is more exploratory than accusatory, focusing on the search for solutions.

He uses questioning as the primary rhetorical device, repeatedly addressing the presenter for clarification. The tone is critical yet courteous, employing traditional parliamentary forms of address. He expresses his views directly and clearly, also using folk expressions such as, "where the forest is cut, chips fly."

It employs emotional and accusatory rhetoric, repeatedly highlighting the plight of "the poorest" and "the most vulnerable." The style is direct and confrontational, utilizing rhetorical questions and personal addresses ("Dear Vadim"). It relies more on moral argumentation than on technical analysis.

Adopts a humorous and slightly ironic approach (referencing the oil lamp) while maintaining a constructive and professional tone. Questions are presented in a structured manner, progressing from general concerns to specific technical details. The overall tone is consultative rather than confrontational.

The approach used is polite yet direct, beginning with a traditional expression of thanks. The rhetoric is fact-based and inquisitive, rather than accusatory, maintaining a diplomatic tone while addressing a sensitive international issue.

Uses a polite yet direct style, beginning with expressions of gratitude and adhering strictly to parliamentary etiquette. The questions are posed rhetorically, utilizing specific examples and logical conclusions to substantiate their position.

Employs a structured and analytical approach, dividing the speech into clear thematic sections. The tone is mostly moderate and constructive, although it does include critical comments. It combines fact-based arguments with emotional appeals, particularly when discussing public safety. The speech concludes with an ironic remark regarding the credibility of the Riigikogu.

The tone of the speech is polite and constructive, starting with a respectful address to the Prime Minister. The speaker employs logical argumentation, highlighting specific examples and offering practical solutions. The style is collaborative and focused on problem-solving, rather than being accusatory.