By Plenary Sessions: Evelin Poolamets

The rhetorical style is critical and direct, employing emotionally charged words ("astonished," "ignorance") to describe the actions taken by the representatives of the Electoral Commission. The speaker poses a question to a colleague to confirm their negative impression and establish a shared critical narrative.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and demanding, posing direct and accusatory questions to the minister. Rhetorical questions are used to cast doubt on the ministry's intentions and seriousness, hinting at a cynical attitude ("Is it not the case that we should just take the money from the simple-minded?").

The rhetorical style is formal and argumentative, yet simultaneously forceful and occasionally confrontational, especially on the topic of energy security. Logical appeals and sharp contrasts are employed (national interests versus ideological slogans), conveying astonishment that the speaker must address matters that are essentially self-evident. The speaker uses rhetorical questions and emphasizes that schools, hospitals, and industry cannot operate in the dark.

The style is formal and analytical, posing a question to the rapporteur during the plenary session. The speaker employs logical argumentation to challenge the nature of the tax, asking directly whether it constitutes a property tax rather than an environmental fee.

The rhetorical style is analytical and critical, emphasizing the seriousness and urgency of the situation (people are becoming refugees in their own homes). Logical arguments are used, pointing to the lack of regulations and the backwardness of science, supported by emotional examples (families in Saarde municipality). Strong comparisons and metaphors are employed, such as equating the effect of infrasound with carbon monoxide or radioactivity, and assessment based purely on expert opinions is criticized as "living in the Middle Ages."

The rhetorical style is combative and sharply critical, employing emotional and condemnatory phrases (e.g., "yet another embarrassing situation," "the European mud league"). The speaker relies on ideological and value-based appeals (competence versus ideology), utilizing a sports analogy to underscore the injustice. The tone is formal, yet aggressive regarding the government's actions.

The rhetorical style is formal, addressing the question to the chairman of the session and the minister. The tone is critical and urgent, stressing the gravity of the issue and demanding answers from the government. A logical appeal is utilized, based on data concerning financial losses.