By Plenary Sessions: Kalle Grünthal

The rhetorical style is combative, accusatory, and blunt, especially aimed at the coalition and ERR (Estonian Public Broadcasting). To clarify the nature of political propaganda, strong historical comparisons (Joseph Goebbels) and personal examples (Anna Levandi, biolabs) are utilized to bolster the legal arguments. The speaker blends the formal introduction of the draft bill with sharp political attacks and personal anecdotes.

The rhetorical style is formal (addressing the presiding officer of the session) but simultaneously sharply accusatory toward the minister. Legal arguments are employed (citing the Advertising Act) to bolster the emotional and ethical accusation of lying. The tone is demanding and seeks a swift procedural resolution to the minister's alleged unethical conduct.

The rhetorical style is highly confrontational and aggressive, featuring direct accusations of lying. Strong, emotional, and unconventional language is employed, such as the phrase "a bucket of slop over your own head," used specifically to discredit the opponent. Rather than relying on logical arguments, the speaker focuses on the opponent's personal incompetence.

The rhetorical style is confrontational, demanding, and repetitive, particularly concerning the minister's response, who is accused of evading the question. Both logical arguments (expert assessments) and emotional emphasis are utilized, highlighting that electricity is a necessary commodity for life, not a luxury good.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, combative, and deeply concerned, employing powerful metaphors and historical analogies (e.g., "sacred cow in India," NKVD). It relies on an extensive factual enumeration of court rulings to establish a logical foundation for an emotional and value-driven appeal in defense of the rule of law. It poses questions to the audience to underscore the universality of its viewpoints, and responds to criticism directly, referencing the opponents' use of labeling.

The rhetorical style is sharp, confrontational, and accusatory, employing direct questions to demand accountability. The speaker relies on an emotional appeal, referencing widespread public dissatisfaction (strikes, signature collection) and quoting a well-known political clip to underscore the government's dishonesty.