By Plenary Sessions: Priit Sibul

The rhetorical style is analytical and incisive, posing direct and challenging questions to the minister and the rapporteur. Logical argumentation is employed to expose contradictions within government policy, specifically concerning the method of making compromises, which is described as being "far removed from the Estonian people." The tone is formal, yet it incorporates critical rhetoric ("to squander millions at the government level").

The rhetorical style is concerned and serious, employing historical analogy (occupation vs. freedom) and narrative (Taagepera’s story) to underscore the depth of the social issue. Regarding the labor market, irony and sarcasm are used to criticize the rebranding of simple jobs as "innovation" (for instance, calling taxi drivers "information society service providers").

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and confrontational, employing strong emotional appeals and moral condemnation. The speaker accuses the minister of detachment and politics of cynicism. Direct rhetorical questions are used to call the opponent's position into question.

The rhetorical style is polite and formal, respectfully addressing both the chairman and the presenter. The proposal is presented as a question, seeking the presenter's opinion, which suggests a logical and consensual appeal rather than an emotional one.

The tone is predominantly critical and demanding, especially toward government representatives and presenters, insisting on concrete answers and avoiding vague references (e.g., to EU regulations). It employs logical and historical arguments to challenge opponents' positions, highlighting political contradictions and previous decisions. Irony is used, for example, by referencing the length of the draft bill compared to the list of cited literature.