By Agendas: Juku-Kalle Raid

The rhetorical style is direct and procedural, incorporating a touch of irony when the question is raised whether every member mentioned should be granted the floor for a rebuttal. The tone is analytical, and the objective is to resolve procedural ambiguity, simultaneously making a specific, personal declaration ("I am not [part of this]").

The rhetorical style is extremely concise, direct, and resolute ("I will keep it very brief"). The speaker employs a literary quote (Teet Kallas) and a simple metaphor ("simple as a trouser button") as an emotional appeal. The tone is decisive and concludes with a strong ideological appeal to terminate the legacy of the Estonian SSR for the sake of history.

The rhetorical style is analytical and historically charged, employing strong analogies (the Stalinist sun is Putinist) and references to genocide to emphasize the persistence of the threat. The speaker uses rhetorical questions to highlight the internal contradictions of the opposing side (EKRE), citing their star columnist. The tone is formal yet urgent, stressing that nothing has changed in the Russian Church.

The rhetorical style is unconventional and pointed, blending personal attacks (aimed at Gaute) and the labeling of colleagues ("freeloaders") with profound literary substance. Irony and sarcasm are employed (a reference to the "great leader"), and an emotional appeal is made through historical context and poetry. The tone is simultaneously philosophical and confrontational.

The rhetorical style is direct, interrogative, and focused on achieving clarity. The tone is formal and requires specific confirmation from the named individuals (Andres Sutt, Jaak Aab). The purpose of the address is to ensure that the political promises are formally recorded in the official protocol.

The style is predominantly formal, factual, and informative, focusing on conveying technical details ("I will briefly discuss what technically occurred"). Although the tone is neutral, there is an added element of slight surprise or doubt regarding the speed of the proceedings ("a very strange speed").

The rhetorical style is direct, analytical, and inquisitive, presenting its viewpoint in the form of debate and challenge ("What do you think about that?"). Logical appeal is used, emphasizing the alignment of responsibilities and rights, while also employing a vernacular expression ("täie lituudiga").

The rhetorical style is direct, substantive, and argumentative, employing criticism aimed at opponents and raising procedural questions to expedite the session. A tone expressing astonishment is used when criticizing the conduct of Isamaa and EKRE. The appeal is primarily logical, focusing on clarifying facts and procedure.

The style is personal, direct, and ironic, leveraging both the recipient's and the speaker's own smoking habits as a rhetorical device. The question itself is provocative, and the apparent goal is to provoke a reaction or highlight the absurdity of the extent of these regulations, all while maintaining an informal tone.

The speaker's rhetorical style is passionate and persuasive, employing strong emotional terms like "graven image" and "ridiculous." Logical arguments (the monument's nature as Soviet symbolism) are supported by personal stories and historical examples, creating a vivid and memorable presentation. The tone is at times confrontational, especially when criticizing the positions of the social democrats, but simultaneously acknowledges the general consensus within the Riigikogu regarding the necessity of relocation.