By Plenary Sessions: Hanah Lahe

The rhetorical style is analytical, critical, and procedural, focusing on the substantive and formal deficiencies of the draft bill. The arguments are logical, demanding an answer to the question of what alternative is being offered for measuring environmental impact upon the repeal of the reports. The tone is formal, but it contains sharp criticism directed at ideology-based lawmaking.

The speaker's style is predominantly combative and passionate, especially when communicating with opponents, using strong words like "stupidity," "conspiracy theories," and "ideological madness." He balances emotional appeals (embarrassment over the level of the debate) with logical arguments, relying on facts and expert assessments. In the commission's reports, the style is neutral and procedural, but there are also personal complaints about interruptions.

The rhetorical style is serious, direct, and expresses moral indignation, employing emotional terms such as "heinous crimes." The speaker relies on public and media scrutiny and presents themselves as an "ordinary citizen" to underscore the widespread nature of the issue. The tone is demanding, posing a direct question to the minister regarding specific measures.