By Plenary Sessions: Siim Pohlak

The style is combative, critical, and at times dismissive, characterizing the opposing side's arguments as ridiculous scaremongering and panic. Both logical appeals (historical facts) and strong emotional appeals are used, emphasizing the detrimental effect of climate panic on children's mental health. The overall tone is concerned and calls for calm.

The rhetorical style is serious, urgent, and confrontational, employing strong emotional appeals, especially regarding the theme of national dignity. Figurative expressions are used (e.g., "steamroller," "bending of knees and spine") to criticize the government's actions. The speaker demands a clear yes/no position in the responses, avoiding engagement with legal nuances.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, skeptical, and at times alarmist, especially concerning the issue of immigration. Strong language is employed (e.g., "an unheard-of amount," "obviously deceptive or incorrect"), and there is an appeal to sound common sense. In addition to logical arguments, cultural references are utilized, such as the Estonian proverb, "where there is, more will come."

The style of the speech is polite and formal, respectfully addressing both the chairperson and the rapporteur. The rhetoric is analytical and logical, focusing on the consequences of the policy and presenting a clear choice between two opposing economic theories. Emotional appeals are not utilized.

The speaker adopts a critical, skeptical, and forthright style, particularly concerning the government's motives regarding Rail Baltic, suggesting an expectation of personal gain. They employ rhetorical questions to challenge the coalition's integrity hidden behind procedural obstacles (like e-meetings). The overall argumentation is quite logical and fact-based, citing specific agreements and the capabilities of the e-state.

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, critical, and demanding, especially when questions are posed, where the presenter is accused of avoiding responsibility and stifling debate. Both logical arguments (a list of taxes, economic impact) and emotional appeals are employed, emphasizing the unfairness of the tax toward ordinary people and rural residents. The speaker repeatedly uses intense phrases, such as "brutally pushing the committee" and "neglect toward rural populations."

The rhetorical style is formal, question-driven, and concerned, highlighting the seriousness of deficiencies in border control. The speaker employs logical appeals, referencing the examples set by other European countries and current European policy trends to justify the urgency of the matter. The tone is direct and demands a clear action plan from the minister.