By Plenary Sessions: Evelin Poolamets

The rhetorical style is critical and, at times, combative, employing both detailed legal argumentation (referencing the ambiguity between the procedural bodies/regulators and the developers) and emotional, value-based appeals (e.g., undermining the rule of law). Comparisons are used (expense compensations versus doping) and historical parallels are drawn (setting utopian goals akin to Soviet party programs) to emphasize the gravity of the situation.

The rhetorical style is critical and concerned, especially regarding demographic issues, where existential and emotional language is employed ("The Estonian people are dying out"). Analogies are used (the "nudging" of the car tax versus the "nudging" of families) to highlight the immorality of the government's actions. Although the questions are formally presented, they contain sharp political controversy.

The speaker adopts a formal and respectful style when addressing the chair and the rapporteur, but the substance of the speech is sharp and questioning. Direct and personal references are made to political opponents (Kaja Kallas) to emphasize the need to scrutinize the backgrounds of government members. The emphasis lies on posing logical and procedural questions designed to expose inconsistencies.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and accusatory, posing direct questions aimed at the government. A logical appeal is employed, connecting the government's official rationale (environmental impacts, climate warming) to alleged negative consequences (ethnic decline, discouraging large families/childbearing). The speaker demands that the opposing party acknowledge their failure to halt the sanctions.

The speaker’s rhetorical style is formal, respectfully addressing both the session chairman and the presenter. At the same time, when social topics are discussed, heavily charged and emotional associations are utilized, specifically linking the burqa to bloodthirsty extremists. Anecdotal examples are also used (such as the woman with a muffin on the Tallink ferry) to illustrate the viewpoints, thereby balancing the logical and emotional appeals.

The speaking style is formal, direct, and analytical, relying on logical arguments and concrete statistical data. The speaker poses pointed questions to the minister and the presenter, demanding explanations and action plans, utilizing data rather than emotional appeals.

The style is predominantly critical and questioning, combining logical appeal (economic data) with sharp sarcasm and hyperbole. The speaker uses irony to criticize the Reform Party's environmental policy, referencing the desire to take Estonia "50 years back" and inquiring about erecting a whipping post near the Riigikogu (Parliament). The tone is formal, but clearly oppositional.