By Plenary Sessions: Juku-Kalle Raid

The speaker's tone is inquisitive and procedural, aiming to clarify the scope of the right to object. The style is formal and direct, utilizing a rhetorical question to highlight a procedural issue, which is then followed by a personal explanation.

The speech is rhetorically extremely brief and direct, utilizing a decisive and supportive tone. The speaker uses a literary quote and a simple analogy ("simple as a trouser button") to emphasize the clarity of the proposal and the need for swift action.

The rhetorical style is analytical, informative, and at times sharp, employing strong historical parallels and comparisons (e.g., the Stalinist sun versus the Putinist sun). The speaker utilizes quotes (Ivan Makarov) and personal experiences to establish credibility and underscore the unchanging political nature of the Russian Church. The objective is to convince colleagues of the seriousness of the subject matter and its historical continuity.

The style is initially sharp, personal, and informal, employing insults and ironic forms of address ("Loafers," "red pervert costume"). Subsequently, the style becomes solemn and reflective, using poetry as an emotional appeal. Finally, he uses sarcasm, quoting a political slogan about the necessity of finding a solution.

The rhetorical style is direct, interrogative, and procedural, focusing on verifying facts and obtaining confirmation. The tone is neutral, and the objective is to ensure that political promises are officially documented in the transcript. The appeal is logical and fact-based, not emotional.

The rhetorical style is formal, descriptive, and explanatory, focusing on the delivery of technical facts ("what technically happened"). Although the speaker expresses surprise regarding the rapid movement of the bill ("a very strange speed"), the overall tone is neutral and relies on logic.

The tone is contemplative and discursive, noting that the topic has been a real "head-scratcher" for him/her, and seeking dialogue and the other party's opinion ("What do you make of it?"). The style is straightforward and uses a colloquial expression ("täie lituudiga," meaning "with full force") when describing the intensity of the punishment.

The style is direct, critical, and occasionally expresses astonishment, especially when commenting on the actions of opponents ("It astounds me"). Logical argumentation is employed when clarifying the content of the agenda item, and a specific procedural demand is presented to restore order to the session.

The speaker’s style is informative, personal, and conversational, utilizing direct address and shared experience ("I am also a smoker"). The question is presented as provocative rhetoric, balancing humor with the potential for social regulation.

The rhetorical style is passionate, direct, and at times combative, utilizing strong emotional appeals and historical narratives (the story of Aili Jõgi). Opponents' arguments (e.g., the Social Democrats' claim of cohesion) are labeled as ridiculous and arbitrary. The speaker uses powerful terminology like "graven image" and emphasizes the immediate urgency of the solution.