By Plenary Sessions: Evelin Poolamets

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, critical, and at times ideologically charged, especially concerning tax policy and European Union bureaucracy. Strong emotional and metaphorical expressions are used (e.g., "choking grip," "senseless burden," "green accounting gone over with a red pencil"). Despite formal considerations, the tone is generally accusatory, criticizing the indifferent and uncomprehending looks of the coalition deputies.

The speech is urgent in tone, extremely critical, and confrontational, accusing the government of "hypocritical lies" and avoiding uncomfortable topics. It employs both emotional appeals (the destruction of the nation-state) and logical appeals (statistics, examples from Western Europe), emphasizing the need for decisive political will.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and interrogative, repeatedly addressing the rapporteur. The tone is critical and investigative, focusing on highlighting political contradictions (gender equality) and procedural discrepancies (conflict of interest, constitutionality). The appeals are primarily logical and procedural, emphasizing the precise correspondence between the content of the bill and the explanatory memorandum.

The rhetorical style is critical, insistent, and direct, especially concerning energy issues, where strong contrasts are employed (e.g., "green vs. red," "a return to truth and knowledge"). The appeals are primarily logical, relying on economic arguments, technical details, and expert opinions. The speaker uses emotionally charged phrases such as "no to wind propaganda" and emphasizes the obligations owed to the public.

The first speaker adopts an inquisitive and procedural tone, seeking clarity regarding the boundaries of the official's discretionary authority. The second speaker's style is highly combative, ideological, and cautionary, employing sharp rhetoric such as "chaos" and "dangerous precedent." The appeal targets both logic (the rule of law) and emotion (the disintegration of social order), vehemently stressing the necessity of resisting ideology.

The rhetorical style is serious and inquisitive, using logical argumentation based on specific journalistic references. The speaker poses troubling rhetorical questions to emphasize the perceived threat to democratic values. The tone is formal, addressing the minister directly.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, emotional, and accusatory, employing strong ideological language ("green ideology," "electricity production colony"). It appeals directly to the concerns and experiences of rural residents, combining these appeals with technical and economic arguments to demonstrate the illogic and unfairness of the proposed bill. Opponents are directly accused of lying and "talking nonsense."

The style is formal and direct, using the forms of address "respected chairman of the session" and "dear minister." The speaker relies on logical arguments and data (statistics, a document written in black and white), posing critical and scrutinizing questions. The tone is skeptical, especially when challenging the assertions made by the commission's representative.