By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The tone of the address is critical and urgent, highlighting the "turbo pace" and "frenzied speed" of decision-making. The speaker employs logical and procedural arguments, repeatedly posing rhetorical questions regarding financial accountability and the reasons for the haste. The style is formal, yet emotionally charged with concern over the far-reaching consequences, citing entrepreneurs and Indrek Neivelt in support of their position.

The rhetorical style is highly polemical, direct, and dismissive, often beginning by invalidating the opponent's argument ("I can't even be bothered to get worked up about this talk anymore"). It employs strong emotional terminology ("ideological brainwashing") and uses logical argumentation through analogies that lead to the absurd (social age, height, species) to thoroughly discredit the opposing viewpoint.

The rhetorical style is highly combative and critical, employing strong judgments (e.g., "on lies," "deeply rooted inculture," "with dictatorship," "ridiculously"). The speaker balances logical appeal (references to the OSCE report) with emotional and value-based condemnation, accusing opponents of an undemocratic stance and the implementation of a hidden political agenda. He/She also uses irony and comparisons (a conversation with the security police regarding Kremlin talking points).

The style is critical, concerned, and analytical, employing logical argumentation and comparative case studies (Georgia and Romania). To enhance the impact, strong hypothetical parallels are drawn with the Estonian context to illustrate the peril and inappropriateness of the intervention. The speaker maintains a formal tone, presenting their viewpoints in the form of questions concerning the criteria for government action.

The rhetorical style is critical, analytical, and interrogative, emphasizing the logical shortcomings within the debate. The speaker employs irony, characterizing the opposing side as superficial and reliant on mere slogans, and, acting as a Member of Parliament, demands a substantive engagement with the topic that moves beyond the restrictions of state secrecy.

The style is analytical and inquisitive, focusing on logical argumentation where risks (interruption of the connection, abandonment of oil shale, vulnerability of cables) are juxtaposed. The tone is formal and neutral, with the aim of prompting the addressee to re-evaluate their positions, utilizing a structured, three-step line of reasoning.