By Plenary Sessions: Kalle Grünthal

The rhetorical style is combative, satirical, and highly informal, utilizing the Santa Claus narrative to deliver sharp political criticism. The speaker emphasizes injustice through emotional appeals and employs a physical gesture (a reference to a short-sleeved shirt) to demonstrate their resilience and nonconformity.

The rhetorical style is confrontational, demanding, and direct, especially in the second speech, where the opponent’s intellect and knowledge are scrutinized. Strong metaphors are employed, comparing the danger of infrasound to radioactive radiation in order to highlight the seriousness and invisibility of the issue. The speaker demands fact-based answers, rejecting vague references to “common sense.”

The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and directly interrogative, focusing purely on logical and legal argumentation. The speaker poses pointed questions, demanding specific explanations and references to legal norms in order to challenge the legality of the current procedure. The tone is skeptical and demanding, stressing that objections regarding authorization are known but are not accepted.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, confrontational, and accusatory, employing powerful metaphors such as "drunk driver" and "disciples of darkness." It balances references to scientific sources (WHO, studies) with intense emotional and moral appeals (health harms, lying, the Nuremberg trials). The speaker is direct and often personally aggressive, demanding specific answers and accusing opponents of incompetence.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and concerned, relying on extensive personal legal experience. The speaker presents their claims with great conviction, asserting the danger of parental manipulation with 101% certainty. Logical appeals are employed to highlight systemic flaws, and the speaker directly questions the presenter regarding the absence of data.

The tone is extremely combative, accusatory, and dramatic, utilizing strong emotional appeals. It employs sharp metaphors, labeling the government a "state criminal mafia" and accusing them of the "physical destruction" of the Estonian people and "intentional killing for the sake of business interests." It addresses the audience directly as "Good people of Estonia" and uses rhetorical questions to underscore the unreasonableness of the government's actions.

The rhetorical style is critical, demanding, and procedurally precise. The speaker employs logical arguments, highlighting the failure to adhere to the proper sequence for ensuring safety and developing legislation. Follow-up questions demand the intervention of the presiding officer to ensure the minister answers the specific question that was asked, demonstrating resolve.

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, emotional, and moralizing, employing strong language and insults (e.g., "fool's cap," "bastard opportunity"). Alongside logical arguments, strong natural analogies (such as the example of the mother bear) and rhetorical questions are utilized to emphasize the danger of the bill and the responsibility of the opponents. The tone is accusatory and urgent.