By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The rhetorical style is critical and skeptical, employing strong phrases such as "total lies" and "a matter of faith." Logical appeals (the demand for evidence) are blended with emotional appeals (a reference to the loss of authority among scientists). The speaker uses a historical analogy (the Covid era) to discredit the current claims.

The rhetorical style is analytical, interrogative, and demanding, focusing on logical arguments and emphasizing accountability. Numerous direct questions are employed to challenge the irresponsibility of the process while simultaneously demanding concrete evidence (analyses). The tone is concerned and cautionary, particularly regarding the potential escalation of security threats.

The rhetorical style is confrontational, demanding, and skeptical, focusing on logical appeal and criticizing the absence of facts. The speaker uses sharp phrases ("ridiculously false talk") and accuses opponents of abusing the security card. The style is directly aimed at the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior, demanding the analyses that form the basis of their political decisions.

The style is formal and directly inquisitive, centered on a logical appeal and the requirement for data. The tone is skeptical and challenging regarding the government’s justifications, demanding a concrete analysis of the actual difference in defense capability. The speaker frames their question as an indirect accusation, implying that the effect of the tax hikes is marginal.

The style is sharp, ironic, and extremely critical, characterizing the government's activities as a "shambles" and "stupid talk." Strong emotional assessments are used, labeling equality funding as "a complete scam" and "ideological propaganda work." The appeals rely on both procedural criticism (citing the Auditor General) and ideological opposition.

The style is confrontational, critical, and insistent, using strong emotional expressions such as "monster," "cry for help," and "shameful lie." The speaker repeatedly emphasizes that his questions are not being answered, and uses logical argumentation based on the constitution and the warnings issued by the Commander of the Defense Forces. He demands personal responsibility from the Prime Minister and a public promise to remain in Estonia in the event of war.

The style is formal, highly argumentative, and at times sharply confrontational, particularly when responding to critical questions. It employs strong moral and emotional appeals (e.g., "the need for repentance," "grotesque," "brutal figure") combined with detailed legal logic to underscore the immorality of state policy and its conflict with existing laws. The speaker accuses opponents of deliberately "muddying the waters" and getting tangled up in rhetoric, while striving to remain grounded in facts and principles.

The rhetorical style is relentless, obstinate, and highly argumentative, focusing on logical and constitutional appeal. The speaker repeatedly poses unanswered questions, demanding responses, and employs strong criticism (e.g., "absurd approach," "unbelievable nonsense"). He uses explanatory parallels (such as initiating a referendum) to illustrate his position, all while maintaining a formal and legalistic tone.

The rhetorical style is critical and concerned, relying on logical arguments and comparative data (Estonian goals versus European Union goals). The speaker uses a reference to an external authority to support their position and concludes with a pointed question that challenges the government's priorities.