By Plenary Sessions: Lauri Laats

The first speech is emotional, direct, and accusatory; it uses leading questions and emphasizes a large number of facts. The second speech is analytical and fact-based, highlighting references to protocols and criticizing the neglect of security issues. In both styles, the focus is on the questions raised and rhetorical attention-grabbing, but the tones differ: passionate versus calmly critical.

The speech is combative and critical, employing rhetorical questions and a notably strong symbolic style (e.g., “tragicomic”). This is combined with emotional emphasis and a couple of personal touches (e.g., a compliment directed at female colleagues). The language is straightforward, sometimes ironically nuanced and informally polished.

A formal and direct tone; presented as a practical question concerning collaboration with colleagues, utilizing a specific example and economic criteria that strengthen the argumentation oruvit.

It employs a combination of an incisive and conclusion-oriented tone: critical, emotionally charged, and repeatedly highlighting deficiencies. It utilizes rhetorical questions and metaphors (the clock) to demonstrate the inadequacy of the organization. The text is formal, but the tone is intensely emotional and critical.

A tone that is emphatically honest and sharply reflective, carefully structured, and emotionally charged; it utilizes repetition and rhetorical devices ("badly/badly," "everything is bad") alongside moral narratives regarding the necessity of improving political culture. The speaker is eloquent and sounds like a critical observer, yet simultaneously continues to present concrete demands and proposals.

A tone expressing significant irritation and accusation, combative and decisive; utilizing powerful lists and an emotive style, emphasizing crises and the need for more radical measures; formal, but primarily argumentative and aimed at generating momentum.