By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, employing strong assessments like "ridiculous," "childish," and "absurd" to characterize the government's explanations. It appeals to logic and constitutional correctness, emphasizing the illogical nature of the government's actions and the exceeding of its mandate. Rhetorical questions and comparisons (e.g., the case of Kristen Michal) are repeatedly used to emphasize the stated positions.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and direct, employing strong judgments (e.g., "irrational," "utterly insane"). Historical analogies (1940, communism) are used to lend weight to the arguments and discredit the opponent's stance. The speaker demands honesty and objective corrective measures, rejecting mere positive thinking and self-confidence as inadequate solutions.

The speaker’s style is sharp, confrontational, and legally well-argued, utilizing strong language (e.g., "outrageous," "unconstitutional"). They appeal to logic and the law, accusing the government of avoiding substantive answers and refusing to admit their mistakes, and employ sarcasm (for instance, when praising the Minister of Justice's legal expertise).

The tone is critical and argumentative, accusing the prime minister of making an inappropriate and slogan-driven statement. The speaker relies on logical and legal appeals (enforcement of laws, rules of diplomacy), maintaining a formal and straightforward style.

The rhetorical style is sharp, demanding, and confrontational, particularly concerning procedural matters and the lack of transparency. The speaker employs direct and emotional phrases (e.g., "illogical on a childish level," "just rambling nonsense off the remote control") and emphasizes logical argumentation and the demand for facts. He criticizes the opposing side's discourse as "slogan-driven" and devoid of substance.