By Plenary Sessions: Kalle Grünthal

The rhetorical style is inquisitive, persistent, and clarifying, focusing on logical clarity. The speaker employs repeated questions ("I would still like to clarify") to ensure an unambiguous interpretation of the rules, while maintaining a formal tone.

The rhetorical style is formal and procedural, posing a question to the Board of the Riigikogu for legal clarification. The tone is critical, referencing the expectation of "not lying" and focusing on the logical argumentation regarding the boundaries of law and immunity.

The rhetorical style is confrontational, demanding, and testing, calling into question the preparation and knowledge of the bill's presenter. Strong emotional comparisons are utilized (a reference to the Soviet Union) to emphasize the danger of losing independence, combining this with a precise analysis of legal details.

The style is critical and forceful, emphasizing the priority of safety and national defense. It employs strong contrasts (national defense versus supporting foreign companies) and logical analogies (traffic safety) to justify the danger inherent in the lack of regulation. It appeals to national consensus, asserting that there is no one in Estonia who would argue against the importance of national defense.

The speaking style is sharp, direct, and highly emotional, using letters from reservists to underscore the gravity of the situation and appeal directly to the audience's conscience. The speaker employs powerful metaphors ("the king is naked," the government "spits in the face of reservists") and accuses the government of blatant disregard. Although specific figures are presented, the argumentation is primarily moral and value-based, stressing the urgent need for immediate action.

The speaker's style is highly confrontational and aggressive, utilizing personal accusations (for example, accusing the minister of "mania grandiosa," or delusions of grandeur) and casting doubt on the presenter's competence. The speaker merges legal and procedural demands (such as requesting specific norms) with powerful emotional and ideological appeals concerning the decline of the nation. The overall tone is accusatory and demanding.

The tone is urgent and concerned regarding the seriousness of the issue, describing the demographic problem as "very acute." When raising the question, the speaker is direct and procedural, employing a logical appeal, referencing the authority of scientists and previous practice in establishing task forces.

The rhetorical style is provocative, skeptical, and forceful, starting with the delivery of dry, official information and then transitioning to the citation of extreme theories. Strong emotional appeals and rhetorical questions are used to challenge official standpoints and instill doubt in the listeners.

The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and direct, employing strong institutional arguments. To emphasize accountability, a simple yet powerful analogy from everyday life is utilized (the firing of an arrogant employee). The tone is logical and procedural rather than emotional, focusing instead on exposing rule violations.