By Plenary Sessions: Priit Sibul

The rhetorical style is sharp, sarcastic, and confrontational, particularly when discussing tax policy issues. It employs political nicknames (such as "the face of the Škoda ad") and accusations ("blackmail"). The speaker favors rhetorical questions and emotionally charged political language to cast doubt on opponents' motives.

The rhetorical style is skeptical, questioning, and demanding, repeatedly expressing incomprehension regarding the minister's explanations ("I do not understand this"). Direct questions and logical counterarguments are employed to highlight the policy's gaps and contradictions. The tone is formal, but includes a sharp political barb, suggesting a partisan motive.

The rhetorical style is confrontational and skeptical, employing ironic metaphors such as the "green corridor" for dangerous Swedish criminals. The speaker relies heavily on emotional appeal, listing severe offenses (murderers, pedophiles), and presents direct questions to the minister that challenge the core tenets of the government's policy. The tone remains formal ("Esteemed Minister"), yet the content is clearly aggressive.

The discourse style is formal, analytical, and cautious, focusing on logical arguments regarding legislative competence, proportionality, and clarity. A critical and occasionally questioning tone is employed to emphasize the insufficient predictability of the drafts and the absence of solutions. Emotional appeals are utilized when describing the personal nature of death and faith, stressing that it is impossible to compel the heart through legislation.

The rhetorical style is analytical, detailed, and constructive, focusing on the quality of legislation and legal correctness. The speaker employs logical arguments, emphasizing the need to preempt problems that arise for individuals who have acquired property. The tone is formal and procedural, including expressions of gratitude and voting requests.

The style is formal and respectful, addressing the minister directly ("Dear Minister!"). The rhetoric is logical and data-driven, focusing on the lack of specific financial information, and posing direct and demanding questions regarding the total cost of the reform.

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, focusing on logical and procedural details. The speaker employs polite phrases ("Honorable Chairman of the Riigikogu! Dear Minister!"), yet simultaneously poses skeptical questions regarding the government's budget justifications. He directly requests the Minister's assistance in comprehending the budget amendments, stressing the necessity of clarification.