By Plenary Sessions: Henn Põlluaas

The rhetorical style is inquisitive and analytical, employing a formal address ("Esteemed Presenter!"). The speaker utilizes logical argumentation to highlight the illogical nature of the current regulation, employing a rhetorical question concerning the necessity of change.

The rhetorical style is critical, challenging, and skeptical, employing strong and slightly sarcastic phrases (e.g., "quite naive," "we'll happily take that over"). The speaker uses rhetorical questions to underscore their arguments and focuses on logical/economic appeal to emphasize the shortcomings of the financial planning.

The rhetorical style is accusatory and combative, employing strong language such as "literally stolen" and "cover-up." The speaker relies both on facts (specific sums, asset misappropriation) and a moral appeal, emphasizing that this is money donated by the public. The tone is urgent and demands immediate action.

The speaker's rhetorical style is critical and insistent, employing emotional language (e.g., "embarrassing to watch") to underscore the gravity of the situation. The appeal itself is logical, focusing on fundamental investment principles and the state's responsibility for securing ammunition supplies. They also reference media coverage (ERR) to support their arguments.

The style is critical, demanding, and inquisitive, highlighting the inadequacy of the draft bill and the lack of justification through rhetorical questions ("How is this even possible?"). There is a strong appeal to logic, procedural rules, and financial accountability to the taxpayer. The tone is formal, addressing the esteemed Chairman and Minister.

The rhetorical style is direct and interrogative, expressing concern and demanding clarification from the executive branch. The tone is initially appreciative but quickly turns critical, referencing the "silence" surrounding the implementation of strategic decisions. A logical appeal is employed, based on the actions taken by neighboring countries and the lessons drawn from the war in Ukraine.

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, critical, and persistent, especially directed at the Riigikogu Board and presiding officers, who are accused of violating the law and failing to fulfill promises. Legal argumentation is employed, but it is delivered with high intensity, expressing astonishment and indignation regarding the continuous raising of illegal demands (a majority vote of the full composition). The speaker uses direct accusations, referring to the board's actions as an "illegal decision" and "lying."