By Plenary Sessions: Helir-Valdor Seeder

The rhetorical style is sharply aggressive and accusatory, employing strong negative terminology such as "stupidity," "cancer," and "disarray." The speaker puts forward logical demands (impact assessments, financial schemes), but delivers them in a highly intense tone, repeatedly calling into question the competence of the prime minister and the government.

The style is serious, formal, and persuasive, aiming to secure parliamentary support for the draft legislation. The text employs both logical arguments (voting results, legal expertise) and urgent appeals (to act judiciously, to de-escalate tensions), emphasizing the priority of national security. The speaker utilizes legal terminology and references external expert assessment.

The style is predominantly formal, and questions are posed logically, demanding a clear action plan and the securing of resources from the government. He/She employs a rhetorical device, agreeing with the Prime Minister that the quality of questions during the information session is superior to the quality of the answers, thereby hinting at criticism directed towards the government. Furthermore, he/she presents a procedural and ironic question concerning telepathic phenomena within the Riigikogu chamber.

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and fact-based, presenting a list of the predecessor's specific failures and contradictions. The speech is structured as an extract of responses, culminating in a politically charged question regarding the party's internal unity. Repetition and parallel structures are used to intensify the criticism.

The style is respectful, beginning with an acknowledgment of the session chair's framing of the topic ("understandable and clear"), but becomes firm and categorical when defending one's own position ("Absolutely not"). The rhetoric is logical and relies on personal long-term experience to justify flexibility in the posing of questions.

The style is critical and argumentative, employing both logical appeals (constitutionality, competition) and emotional emphasis (harm, unreasonableness). The speaker uses contrasts ("a radically opposite step") and provides concrete examples (Leie HLÜ) to support their position. Additionally, the speaker is procedurally demanding, criticizing the inflexibility of the session chair and the ministers' disrespect toward parliament.

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, forceful, and formal, particularly when addressing the Board of the Riigikogu, accusing them of "flagrant violation" of the law and "abuse of power." It appeals strongly to logic and legal statutes, demanding clear references to specific laws and detailed explanations. While expressing indignation and "embarrassment" over the quality of the legislative process, it consistently maintains a focus on legal argumentation.