By Plenary Sessions: Kalle Grünthal

The style is combative, emotional, and accusatory, particularly concerning the committee's work and the opposition. The speaker employs strong moral appeals, stressing the opponents' lack of "conscience" and comparing procedural blocking to the "Stalin era." He mixes technical details with populist arguments, highlighting the public's concerns and personal observations, and frequently poses rhetorical questions.

The style is direct, at times admonishing and critical, particularly when addressing the session chairman and the minister. Both logical arguments (references to laws and regulations) and a personal example (a solidarity strike) are used to highlight the hypocrisy. The overall tone is businesslike, but disappointment is also expressed at the end ("What a shame").

The rhetorical style is initially ironic and sarcastic, employing exaggerated praise ("War Princess," "I would give you an award") before launching a sharp attack. The tone is generally aggressive and accusatory, emphasizing the abnormality of the situation ("phenomenon"). In subsequent speeches, the style shifts to become directly confrontational, accusing the prime minister of lying and procedurally demanding answers.

The rhetorical style is insistent, confrontational, and alarmist, employing strong moral accusations (e.g., illegal human research, crime, accessories to the crime). A mix of technical data and emotional examples of victims is presented (e.g., the man from Paide, Õnne-Ann Roosvee). The speaker positions himself as a "messenger" who reveals hidden information, urging colleagues to restore critical thinking.

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, emotional, and forceful, employing strong historical parallels (Stalinist, forced collectivization, deportations) to emphasize fear and danger. The speaker uses direct accusations against the government ("anti-people policy," "shameful") and calls upon the people to unite to "overthrow the Stalinist regime." The appeals are directed both at logic (the constitution) and emotions (historical trauma).

The style is confrontational and critical, featuring direct attacks against the coalition's policies and representatives. It employs both logical arguments (references to the constitution and economic theory) and irony and personal asides (e.g., criticizing colleagues for leaving and drinking water). The speaker attempts to maintain a substantive debate while simultaneously criticizing the procedural haste.

The rhetorical style is formal, respectful, and inquisitive, focusing on logical arguments and procedural shortcomings. The speaker utilizes a citation from a legal authority to underscore the necessity of respecting court rulings before leveling criticism against the actions of the Prosecutor's Office. The tone is serious and demands accountability, repeatedly posing questions regarding the implementation of existing mechanisms.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and dramatic, directly accusing government members of lying and manipulating facts. Strong emotional appeals ("we are actually defenseless") and hypotheses (e.g., the hidden goals of Rail Baltic) are utilized, alongside historical parallels (US Prohibition, World War II weapons). The introduction to one interpellation employs ironic and sarcastic praise directed at Kaja Kallas.

The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, focusing on legal and procedural logic. Sharp rhetorical questions are employed to challenge the legitimacy of the actions taken by the coalition and the ministry, such as inquiries regarding constitutional amendments. The tone is demanding and stresses the necessity of consensus and tolerance when addressing the real-life issues faced by people.

The rhetorical style is interrogative and challenging, frequently employing rhetorical questions to underscore the ambiguity surrounding national sovereignty and EU obligations. The tone remains formal (addressing the respected Chair of the session and the Rapporteur), yet the substance is combative, focusing on exposing logical inconsistencies and procedural flaws.

The rhetorical style is sharply aggressive and confrontational, employing personal criticism aimed at the prime minister (a reference to the "dress with globalist general's epaulets") and emotional, vivid imagery (cow dung heaps in front of government buildings). Logical contrast is utilized (the handling of strikes in Estonia versus Germany), and questions are posed that call into question the public's right to protest.

The rhetorical style is confrontational and dramatic, highlighting the gravity of the events and the media's silence. Strong and emotional comparisons are employed, especially when criticizing the mainstream media, who are likened to a Soviet partisan. The discourse is framed as a question, but its substance is rather accusatory and rhetorical.