By Plenary Sessions: Priit Sibul

The rhetorical style is dual: initially, questions are presented formally and data-driven, but when criticizing the bill, it becomes extremely aggressive and informal. Strong and derogatory language ("in the shitter") is used to completely discredit both the previous and the proposed bill, emphasizing emotional and contemptuous opposition.

The rhetorical style is direct, interrogative, and critical, employing strong and emotionally charged terms such as "neonationalization." The speaker relies on both a specific case study (a forest owner, valued at 125,000 euros) and detailed data (compensation rates) to construct a logical appeal for justice.

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, addressing the minister respectfully while presenting criticism regarding the shortcomings of the education system. The speaker employs logical argumentation, describing the confusion and lack of motivation caused by the policy (the change in exam timing). The tone is inquisitive and demands justification for the policy's objectives.

The speaker’s style is combative, critical, and insistent, utilizing powerful emotional and historical appeals. He accuses the minister of indifference and ironically refers to him as a "savior." The argumentation is bolstered by detailed case studies (such as the value of a forest owner's land dropping by half) and a direct comparison to nationalization.

The style is analytical and sharp, frequently employing rhetorical questions to challenge the government’s actions and responses (e.g., "Why wasn't this sensible solution found?"). The speaker utilizes an emotional appeal, highlighting the case of a specific concerned citizen (Põlva sports veteran Ilmar Tagel), combining this with detailed political and procedural criticism. The tone is formal, but the speaker is not afraid to point toward political self-promotion and the suspicion surrounding "roof money" (pork-barrel spending/earmarks).

The manner of speaking is extremely formal, neutral, and procedural, focusing on short and clear instructions. The style is entirely logical and purposeful, avoiding any emotional or narrative appeals. The speaker uses the repetitive and concise phrase "Palun hääletada" (Please vote) to ensure the smooth conduct of the session.

The tone is formal, questioning, and procedural, maintaining politeness when addressing the Speaker of the Riigikogu and the minister. The speaker employs a logical appeal, citing authorities (the Chancellor of Justice, legal experts) to underscore the potential gravity of the draft bill's deficiencies.