By Plenary Sessions: Kalle Grünthal

The rhetorical style is combative, insistent, and dramatic, utilizing strong accusations ("corrupt government," "business sharks") and emotional analogies (colonization, shards of glass). The style merges detailed financial analysis and legal references (the Constitution) with recurring and cautionary statements. Humor (laughter in the hall) is also employed when highlighting procedural issues.

The rhetorical style is sharp and confrontational, particularly when directed at the Riigikogu board, where a quoted personal attack ("chatbot") is employed. When addressing the Chancellor of Justice, the tone is formal and relies on logical, law-based argumentation, posing the question directly and specifically.

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative and demanding, especially when calling the minister's answers into question and labeling them "utterly absurd nonsense." The arguments are strongly logical and fact-based, relying on specific procedural details, constitutional articles, and technical data. Sharp metaphors are employed, such as "a concrete colossus the height of a TV tower," to emphasize the sheer scale of the projects.

The style is formal and serious, addressing the minister respectfully but simultaneously posing a sharp and demanding question. Both a logical appeal (a demand for the source) and emotional emphasis are used, describing the minister's statement as "a very frightening sentence."

The rhetorical style is formal, legally precise, and challenging, focusing on logical argumentation and concrete facts (dates, specific statutes). The speaker poses repetitive and meticulously defined questions, demanding an explanation from the minister regarding the disregard of the current legal act. The style is rather confrontational, as the propriety of the actions of both the minister and the session chairman is being called into question.

The rhetorical style is direct, factual, and at times impatient, especially in the introduction of the topic ("I won't waste any more of my time on this"). The speaker uses personal experience to establish credibility and appeals to logic, emphasizing the direct and negative impact of insufficient financial resources on food security, thereby creating a tone of urgency.