By Plenary Sessions: Leo Kunnas

The rhetorical style is serious and formal, employing powerful historical parallels (the Nazi regime, the Soviet Union) to underscore the moral and existential gravity of the argument. The speaker adopts a critical and bewildered tone, questioning why the basic concepts remain incomprehensible.

The style is formal and respectful, with the speaker politely addressing the session chair and the rapporteur. The speaker employs a logical and simplified hypothetical example (the production of trinitrotoluene/TNT) to raise a specific, procedural question concerning the initial steps required to launch large-scale manufacturing. The tone is investigative and practical.

The rhetorical style is serious, logical, and compelling, focusing on justifying the proposed legal amendment by citing specific security risks and operational necessities. The speaker employs hypothetical scenarios (such as the threat of armed internal conflict) to underscore the danger, all while maintaining a formal, fact-based approach. Finally, he points out systemic inertia, which is preventing the rapid adoption of these necessary changes.

The speech is formal and respectful, employing standard forms of address ("Honorable Chairman of the Session! Dear Minister!"). The rhetoric utilizes personal background (originating from Kliima village in Võru municipality) to justify the presentation of a regional issue, thereby balancing the personal and official approaches.

The style is polite and formal, addressing the rapporteur directly and respectfully. It primarily uses questions to gain clarity regarding the legislative process (how the improved text was reached) and the possibilities for achieving the desired political goals. The tone is analytical and constructive, praising positive developments.