By Plenary Sessions: Kalle Grünthal

The rhetorical style is extremely serious and critical, highlighting the gravity of the situation ("extremely serious"). It employs strong logical arguments grounded in legal definitions and references to constitutional breaches. The speaker utilizes rhetorical questions to underscore the necessity and potential avenues for halting the process.

The rhetoric is extremely combative, categorical, and alarm-sounding, utilizing powerful emotional appeals and historical parallels (Gestapo, NKVD, Stasi). The argumentation relies both on legal bases (the Constitution, the Code of Criminal Procedure) and rhetorical questions, accusing opponents of "muddying the waters" and favoring totalitarianism.

The rhetorical style is direct, demanding, and challenging, questioning the minister's claims and assumptions regarding the behavior of local governments. The speaker employs logical argumentation, highlighting the scale of the problem (tens of thousands of families) and calling for concrete legislative solutions. The tone is rather procedural and concerned, underscoring the lack of protection for rights.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, emotional, and direct, employing strong language and rhetorical questions ("Have you gone completely mad?"). Historical references (Lenin, the revolution) and provocative analogies (statistical money in the store, instruments of rape) are used to emphasize the absurdity and unconstitutionality of the government's actions. The tone is predominantly accusatory and urgent, demanding immediate change.

The rhetorical style is critical and concerned, focusing on logical arguments and concrete examples (the Chancellor of Justice's triple intervention). The emotionally charged term "steamroller tactics" is used to describe the coalition's actions. The presentation is formal and aimed at raising the question to find a legal resolution.

The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and urgent, employing strong language (e.g., "mumbo-jumbo," "flailing") to characterize the government's actions. The speaker relies on facts and legal arguments but adds emotional warnings regarding the dangers of a surveillance society and the illegal surveillance activities reminiscent of the Soviet era. He focuses on refuting the Prime Minister's claims, stressing that his arguments are based purely on facts.

The rhetorical style is a blend of logical argumentation (referencing scientists, WHO guidelines, and historical facts) and strong emotional and graphic language, particularly on the topic of mines. The tone is often critical and challenging, accusing opponents of outdated thinking or a lack of resolve. Strong metaphors concerning independence and liberation are employed (Moscow vs. Brussels, Pandora's box).

The style is confrontational and insistent, starting with a direct challenge to the minister's information ("absolutely false"). Emotional accusations are used (e.g., "mafia-like activity"), and specific data is demanded (the number of complaints and proceedings) to support the assertion regarding the seriousness of the problem.

The rhetorical style is direct, demanding, and confrontational, especially towards the presenter, ironically referencing the "overflowing speech about the positivity of Rail Baltic." The speaker employs a logical appeal, demanding verification of the facts, and concludes by expressing sharp doubt regarding the reliability of the information provided ("Are you telling the truth here, or are you just making things up?").