By Plenary Sessions: Kalle Grünthal

The rhetorical style is confrontational, cautionary, and accusatory, employing powerful metaphors, such as "digital concentration camp." Appeals are made both to logic (through detailed citation of laws and specific legal sections) and to emotion (by referencing the loss of independence and the elements of a crime). The tone is formal, yet sharp in substance, accusing the opposition of violating the constitution.

The rhetorical style is questioning, critical, and concerned, focusing on logical arguments and practical examples (e.g., lease agreements, scam emails). The speaker attempts to clarify complex topics using plain language to emphasize the threat posed to consumer and national security. The tone is formal and procedural, demanding accountability and the implementation of measures.

The style is combative and insistent, utilizing strong emotional appeals for public resistance and the rediscovery of the will for freedom. Historical comparisons are used (serfdom, the St. George's Night Uprising) alongside personal stories (a phone call, a meeting with entrepreneurs) to substantiate the claims. The tone is sharply critical of the government and "warmongers," accusing them of ignorance and the destruction of the state.

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, critical, and forceful, employing strong emotional appeals while comparing the situation to totalitarianism and the Novgorod Veche. The speaker levels direct accusations against the government and the rapporteur (e.g., regarding hearing difficulties) and utilizes legal references to criminalize the actions of their opponents. The overall tone is formal, yet highly confrontational.

The rhetorical style is serious, critical, and procedural, posing direct and demanding questions to the Chancellor of Justice. The appeal is primarily logical and legal, focusing on procedural errors (failure to notify) and the absence of sanctions. The speaker uses strong terms such as "rummaging" and "snooping" to emphasize the seriousness of the violations.

The style is highly confrontational, accusatory, and provocative, focusing on undermining the minister's credibility. Strong historical and medical examples are used as a logical appeal to demonstrate the mutability of science. The speech concludes with a direct public challenge to the minister to participate in a debate to determine "who prevails."

The rhetorical style is formal ("Esteemed Chairman of the Session"), yet it carries an ironic or skeptical tone, employing a rhetorical question ("Has the composition of the Riigikogu been reduced in the meantime?") to highlight the poor attendance. The speech is short and direct, focusing on the procedural incongruity.

The rhetorical style is provocative and alarming, using public assessment as a pretext to highlight an extremely serious security threat. The speaker employs quotation (President Karis) and the opinion of a third party (a clever man) to underscore the threat of Russia arming the fifth column, posing the question formally, but accusatorily in substance.

The speaker's style is predominantly confrontational, aggressive, and moralizing, repeatedly leveling direct accusations at the session chair regarding violations of the law and the fabrication of untruths. He uses strong emotional appeals (e.g., "you are playing with fire," "shameful," "cancer") and populist phrases ("Estonian banana republic"), while backing up his positions with legal details. He also employs dramatic gestures, such as declaring a strike and presenting a smoked pig’s head as a gift.