By Plenary Sessions: Evelin Poolamets

The speaker’s style is formal and critical, using questions to highlight contradictions and call the government's actions into question. The focus is on logical appeal, requiring precise answers and clarification of the problems. A rhetorical question is employed to emphasize the priority of Estonian law.

The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and demanding, particularly when evaluating government actions concerning security matters. Logical argumentation is employed, emphasizing procedural correctness and the legal basis, while simultaneously criticizing the government's failure to grasp the gravity of the situation.

The rhetorical style is serious and concerned, emphasizing the extent of the lack of trust ("almost half of Estonia"). Logical arguments and data are used, posing direct questions to the presenter that call the system's technical reliability into question.

The rhetorical style is formal, detailed, and critical, employing strong metaphors (e.g., a company heading for bankruptcy) and emphasizing the depressing seriousness of the situation. The appeals are primarily logical and data-driven, presenting audit findings related to systemic problems and providing technical analysis of draft legislation. The speaker also addresses the late-night audience directly ("Good evening to those of you still awake!").

The rhetorical style is sharply accusatory and combative, utilizing strong emotional terms such as "adventure" and "adventurer," and leveling personal criticism at the minister. Although the arguments rely on logic (the experience of foreign countries, procedural shortcomings), the presentation remains intense and emphasizes the critical nature of the situation ("in a very bad situation").