By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The style is highly combative, emotional, and moralistic, employing strong value-based rhetoric concerning the sanctity of home, marriage, and human life. The speaker draws on historical parallels and uses moral condemnation to underscore the danger and immorality of the government's actions. The speech concludes with a direct and urgent appeal: "Do not attack people's homes!"

The style is sharp, critical, and forceful, employing strong moral judgments such as "shamefully" and "a disgrace." While the appeals are primarily logical and procedural, demanding substantive consideration, the tone remains confrontational and accusatory, particularly when directed at the judicial system. The author uses repetitive rhetoric regarding the avoidance of responsibility.

The rhetorical style is critical and argumentative, centering on logical counter-arguments and the exposure of double standards. Rhetorical questions are employed to compel the opposing party to deliberate the potential ramifications of their actions regarding Estonia's internal affairs. The tone is formal and accusatory, underscoring the unworthiness of the conduct.

The rhetorical style is analytical, critical, and demanding, posing pointed questions to the opposing side that necessitate clear terms and definitions. Logical arguments are employed, and research is cited to underscore the gravity of the issues. The tone is formal and focuses on political accountability.

The rhetorical style is highly combative and critical, especially concerning the actions of the coalition, employing repetition ("Answer: we don't care") and strong emotional language ("schizophrenic," "outrages"). The appeals are a blend of the logical (quotes from business owners and analysis of regulations) and the value-based/emotional (the agenda to abolish private property, the punishment of large families).

The tone is predominantly critical, insistent, and moralizing, especially on the topic of child protection, using strong emotional expressions ("filth," "the most disgusting materials"). Rhetorical questions are often used to emphasize the absurdity or immorality of the opposing side's standpoints. The style is direct and confrontational, accusing the government of merely waving slogans and colleagues from the Reform Party of implementing the Chinese totalitarian model.