By Plenary Sessions: Kalle Grünthal

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and at times emotional, employing rhetorical questions and metaphors ("embarrassing," "schoolboys in the corner") to shame opponents. However, the argumentation remains strongly logical and legally grounded, referencing constitutional principles and general principles of law. The overall tone is urgent, stressing the necessity of immediately beginning to limit the power of officials.

The tone is critical and urgent, particularly regarding the failure to comply with the law, and the speaker respectfully addresses the minister. Rhetorical questions ("Why is this law not being complied with?") and emotional examples (a demand to speak Russian in a shop) are used to emphasize the seriousness of the problem and the endangerment of the Estonian language.

The rhetorical style is extremely provocative, aggressive, and offensive, utilizing emotional and extreme analogies to discredit opponents. The speech maintains a low level of formality and relies on ridiculing the opposing side, comparing them to mentally ill individuals who believe themselves to be great historical figures.

The rhetorical style is variable, ranging from detailed legal criticism to highly sarcastic and emotional expression. The speaker frequently uses informative and straightforward language ("What a ridiculous draft bill," "Good grief") and irony, especially when addressing social and economic issues. In foreign policy debates, the tone is logical and demanding, stressing the preference for mathematical laws and evidence over political consensus.

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and forceful, incorporating both logical arguments (gaps in the law) and powerful emotional comparisons (likening infrasound to invisible but deadly radioactive radiation). Direct accusations are leveled against the implementation of policies that disregard human health, and rhetorical questions are raised regarding the poor quality of measuring devices.

The speaker’s rhetorical style is confrontational, direct, and manipulative, presenting the rapporteur with a loaded question that casts doubt on the opposing side’s commitment to improving the health of the Estonian people. When the question is posed, the respondent is strictly required to use a predetermined answer format ("Because..."), which demonstrates an intent to control and discredit the opponent’s arguments.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotional, expressing "a very serious protest." The speaker employs strong personal attacks (e.g., "brazenly," "circus") and demands equal treatment from the presiding officer.

The rhetorical style is critical and combative, employing strong figurative expressions (e.g., "rats in the granary," "Indian caste system") to underscore the injustice. The tone is formal (using addresses like "Esteemed Chair of the Session"), but the content is emotionally charged, urgently demanding explanations and justifications regarding the disparity in transparency.

The rhetorical style is critical and concerned, emphasizing the "astonishing" fact of the lack of knowledge. The appeal is rather logical and fact-based, relying on specific statements and procedural errors made by institutions (the Health Board). The address is formal, directed at the session chairman and the minister.