By Plenary Sessions: Priit Sibul

The rhetorical style is formal and directly interrogative, focusing on demanding facts and figures from the minister. The speaker employs logical appeals, referencing previous interviews (Jürgen Ligi) and the opinions of academics (Aaviksoo) to underscore the lack of adequate data. The tone is demanding and critical of the government’s unclear procedures.

The rhetorical style is sharply accusatory and confrontational, particularly directed at the Prime Minister. Strong phrases like "lied" and "number magic" are employed, indicating significant emotional intensity. Although logical justifications and calculations are demanded, the manner of presentation is rather aggressive and clearly expresses distrust.

The rhetoric is highly interrogative and critical, repeatedly demanding clarification of the discussions and analyses underpinning the draft legislation. The speaker employs irony, referencing earlier claims made by fellow faction members regarding the danger posed by churches and ballot boxes, in order to underscore their opposition. The overall tone is skeptical and demanding, focusing on the absence of rational justification.

The tone is sharp, directly interrogative, and critical, employing an emotional appeal regarding the perceived lack of "common sense" in the government's decisions. It concludes by raising a direct crisis of confidence concerning the Prime Minister's legitimacy should Parliament withdraw its trust. The style is formal, yet it incorporates powerful rhetorical challenges.

The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, centering on the presentation of specific, substantive questions that demand evidence-based responses. The tone is anxious and demanding concerning the security situation, stressing the need for actions over mere words, and seeking confirmation regarding the intensity of regional cooperation.