By Plenary Sessions: Ants Frosch

The rhetorical style is formal, but incorporates provocative and anecdotal elements, referencing the prime minister's alleged comment regarding the residents of Võru. To deliver the criticism, a hypothetical and emotional example ("angry pensioners") is employed to highlight the painful effect of the legislation.

The style is combative, critical, and dramatic, utilizing strong emotional appeals and anecdotes (the officer and the radio receiver) to criticize the quality of the debate. Storytelling (the Otepää incident) is employed to illustrate procedural and ethical shortcomings. The speech concludes with a provocative and Trumpian call for hackers to attack the system and cause it to collapse.

The rhetorical style is formal, logical, and deeply concerned, emphasizing the "extreme critical nature" of the situation and the impact of the US elections on European security. The speaker poses direct, politically significant questions, demanding clarification regarding failed initiatives and future plans. The tone is critical of the effectiveness of the government's performance.

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, expressing strong astonishment and condemnation ("how could such a thing happen"). A value-based appeal is employed, contrasting national symbols with social issues to highlight the misplaced nature of the priorities.

The speaker’s style is forceful, critical, and uses strong language, demanding that "enough of this nonsense." He/She employs both logical arguments concerning procedural errors and emotional and literary appeals, referencing Kafka’s work "The Trial" to illustrate that the process itself constitutes the punishment. Furthermore, he/she utilizes historical anecdotes (such as the Interior Minister’s address, "You are plants") to underscore institutional incompetence.

The rhetorical style is insistent, anxious, and alarmist, emphasizing the seriousness of security threats and the possibility of a terrorist act occurring in Estonia. Both logical arguments are employed (demanding specific figures and a moratorium) as well as phrases that create emotional tension ("a depressing response," "the question is when"). The style is formal, posing questions to the minister and the chairman.