By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The rhetorical style is highly polemical, critical, and emotionally charged, employing strong condemnations (e.g., "a disgrace," "a shameful affair," "lies brazenly to one's face"). The speaker balances legal argumentation (constitutional doctrine) with sharp accusations regarding the narrow-mindedness and limited intellectual capacity of their opponents. They use hypothetical examples (such as preventive detention) to illustrate violations of the rule of law.

The rhetorical style is critical, accusatory, and passionate, particularly concerning the government's attitude towards reservists, which the speaker describes as "very clearly" bad. Emotional contrasts are employed (the Riigikogu salary hike versus reservists' compensation), and the point is stressed that this is a "much more serious problem" than the actual amount of money involved. Simultaneously, the speaker puts forward rational and detailed proposals for improving the draft legislation.

The style is extremely combative, confrontational, and accusatory, employing strong negative assessments such as "pathetic and primitive sloganizing catchphrases" and "political rape." The speaker contrasts their position with the opponents' "empty posturing" and hypocrisy, framing their arguments within the context of an ideological and constitutional conflict. Examples (the SAPTK case) are used to illustrate their views.

The style is one of concern and practicality, emphasizing the importance of the topic ("what worries me"). The speaker combines a value-based appeal (valuing motherhood) with a concrete example of a foreign country's policy. The address is presented as a question directed straight to the prime minister to assess the policy's relevance in Estonia.

The speaker’s rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and emotionally charged, employing strong expressions such as "brutal outrage" and accusing the media of operating as a "propaganda mouthpiece." He/She balances detailed scientific references and data with moral appeals, emphasizing the breach of public trust and the avoidance of accountability. The overall tone is urgent and demanding, calling for support of the draft bill based on the precautionary principle.

The rhetorical style is analytical and logical, employing institutional arguments and posing hypothetical questions to opponents to challenge their political consistency. The tone is formal and centers on procedural justice, utilizing questions to clarify the underlying reasons for opposition. Rational and principled arguments dominate, rather than emotional appeals.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and apprehensive, employing strong expressions such as "meaningless barking" and "losing all composure." The speaker relies on logical arguments, posing questions that challenge the government’s actions and the security situation, yet delivers them with intense emotion. The tone is formal and overtly confrontational.