By Plenary Sessions: Priit Sibul

The rhetorical style is incisive, interrogative, and demanding, focusing on challenging the presenter's arguments and legal foundation. The speaker repeatedly demands specific answers and citations of legal statutes, indicating an appeal based on logic and procedure. The tone is skeptical and seeks to expose the opposing party's motives ("thought control").

The speaker’s style is highly critical and combative, employing powerful emotional imagery and metaphors, such as comparing the government to an "alcoholic son" who is taking the mother’s last. He emphasizes the urgency of the situation, referencing the demographic crisis and a historical threat (the delay of 1939). He blends logical arguments (budgetary data, inflation) with sharp accusations regarding the government’s duplicity ("the form is the content").

The style is analytical and, at times, passionate, particularly concerning social issues where a strong moral framework is utilized. The speaker criticizes opponents for focusing on trivialities (literally, "holes in the fence") and employs rhetorical questions to underscore the debate's lack of substance and the potential inadequacy of the opposing side. The speaker maintains a formal but emotional tone, referencing a personal experience from 16 years prior.

The style is formal, analytical, and critical, posing direct questions to the Prime Minister and the rapporteur. The emphasis is placed on logical argumentation and challenging the soundness of political decisions, particularly within the context of bureaucracy and competitiveness. The tone is rather concerned and demands clarification regarding proactive initiatives, as opposed to those that create obstacles.