By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The tone of the address is critical, urgent, and occasionally confrontational, stressing that this constitutes a "gigantic legitimacy problem." The style is largely logical, employing analogies (Russia's e-elections, traffic law violations) and citing authorities to underscore the primacy of trust and constitutionality over mere convenience. The speaker employs strong language, pointing to irresponsible conduct and a "vicious circle" that prevents the system from being terminated.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, insistent, and at times emotional, blending legal argumentation with powerful appeals for justice and accountability. Strong metaphors are employed (for example, describing the prosecutor's office as a "meat grinder") alongside rhetorical questions to underscore the injustice and the impunity of officials. The tone is formal yet passionate, demanding immediate rectification of the situation.

The tone is predominantly critical, skeptical, and concerned, especially regarding the sense of security among families and the country's defense capability. Strong emotional expressions are used ("anti-family measures," "greedy entrepreneurs," "incomprehensible boasting"), and challenges and rhetorical questions are posed to the government. The style is rather confrontational and demands accountability.

The rhetorical style is demanding, confrontational, and insistent, focusing on repetitive, specific questions that require simple yes-or-no answers. Logical argumentation is employed (using the analogy of asking for the time) to criticize the Prime Minister's evasion of answers, accusing him of demagoguery and dodging the questions. The tone is critical of both the government's policy and the inaction of the presiding officer of the session.

The rhetorical style is formal, yet sharply critical and combative, culminating in the assertion that Estonia is not a democratic state in the current situation. The speaker employs logical arguments, drawing upon historical events (March 12, 1934) and constitutional analysis, while simultaneously posing challenging rhetorical questions to opponents. The tone is accusatory and concerned, describing the situation as "shameful."

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, accusatory, and sharp, employing strong expressions like "obtuse" to describe the Prime Minister's answers and "green racket" regarding the government's policy. The speaker presents their views with an insistent tone, focusing on the government's incompetence, lack of vision, and outright lying to the public. Numerous rhetorical questions and stark contrasts are utilized to emphasize the moral and constitutional injustice.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, demanding, and repetitive, focusing on obtaining specific answers. The speaker employs sharp language, accusing the prime minister of "waffling" and the session chair of protecting a coalition colleague. The appeals are primarily logical (demanding adherence to procedural rules), but they are delivered with great emotional intensity (frustration, indignation).

The style of discourse is formal and relies heavily on extensive citation of an external authority (Martin Ehala) to lend weight to the arguments. Emotionally charged terms ("teoorjus"—theory servitude) are employed, and a pointed question regarding equal treatment is raised, which gives the tone a critical and urgent character. The text concludes by posing a direct question to the opposing side.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, sharp, and moralistic, employing strong words like "plundering," "perverted," and "contrary to reason." The speaker frequently relies on logical arguments and absurd analogies (e.g., changing gender versus changing species or height) to underscore the irrationality of the opponents' positions. They present themselves as the representative of a worldview based on truth and common sense, contrasting this with the government's "perverted" way of thinking.