By Plenary Sessions: Kalle Grünthal

The speaker's style is confrontational, critical, and highly formal, centering on logical and legal arguments. They pose sharp, repetitive questions, accusing the opposing party (the committee chairman) of being ignorant of elementary constitutional matters. The tone is accusatory and demanding, particularly when criticizing procedural deficiencies.

The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, respectfully addressing the presiding officer of the session. The speaker presents a logical description of the problem, acknowledging the inevitability of the situation, but subsequently offering a pragmatic solution. The speech concludes with a direct question seeking the chairman's opinion.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, emotional, and accusatory, employing sharp language (shameful, humiliating, repression) directed at the police and the government. It relies on specific and detailed case analyses (Lihula, Sinimäed) and personal appraisals to underscore the gravity of the situation. It presents its positions as a blend of logical-legal arguments and emotional appeals, urging colleagues to support national sentiments.

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, dramatic, and urgent, employing powerful metaphors (e.g., fixing a pocket watch with a sledgehammer, the Potemkin village). The speaker addresses "the people of Estonia" directly, combining procedural criticism with an emotional call for political resistance. An accusatory tone is used, referencing the government's bunglers and the theory of an experimental state designated by Brussels.

The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and insistent in its questioning, focusing on a specific and recent crisis ("Tonight"). It employs a logical appeal, emphasizing the government's responsibility and demanding a practical solution in the form of compensation for damages.

The rhetorical style is combative, dramatic, and cautionary, employing powerful emotional appeals and metaphors such as "Estonia's crown jewel" and "greedy hands." The speaker emphasizes an urgent threat and directly accuses the opposition of lying and concealing information, while also referencing historical resistance during the Soviet Union era. He utilizes logical argumentation, citing specific legal statutes, but combines this approach with accusations of conspiracy.

The speaker's rhetorical style is highly combative and critical, employing emotional language (e.g., describing the situation as an "unpleasant film" and referring to a "murderous bill"). They frequently pose sharp rhetorical questions to highlight their opponents' moral inconsistency and lack of competence.

The style is predominantly confrontational, sarcastic, and direct. It incorporates both personal remarks (such as the waitress's "well-fed" state) and political threats (a fatal impact on the elections). The speaker employs pragmatic expressions ("half an egg is better than an empty shell") and presents their viewpoints argumentatively, relying on historical and technical examples.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotionally charged, employing strong expressions like "tactical nuclear bomb" and "dirty tricks." The focus is on exposing the opponents' dishonesty and making moral appeals, demanding the restoration of integrity and the clearing of reputations.

The rhetorical style is confrontational, demanding, and formal, focusing on challenging factual assertions and procedural grounds. Logical appeals are employed, requiring specific data (historical temperature) and constitutional explanations. The speaker emphasizes the fundamental importance of the issues, rather than merely "nitpicking."