By Plenary Sessions: Evelin Poolamets

The rhetorical style is very formal and respectful, addressing the minister politely ("Dear Minister!"). The focus is on logical and fact-based questions, demanding detailed explanations and clarification of legal terminology, while avoiding emotional appeals.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and cautionary, employing strong metaphors such as the "invasion of wind farms" and "actual turbine forests." A balance is struck between emotional arguments (the destruction of the living environment, health risks) and logical arguments (subsidies, real estate prices) to underscore the dangers posed by wind energy. The speaker requested extra time to present their viewpoint, which suggests a desire to cover the topic thoroughly.

The rhetorical style is urgent, anxious, and at times highly confrontational, stressing the danger of population extinction if measures are not taken. It utilizes both detailed statistical arguments and strong emotional appeals, connecting the issue of birth rates to constitutional duty. Criticism aimed at the government is sharp, labeling it "anti-family" and referencing the opponents' cynical remarks regarding motherhood.

The style of discourse is critical, accusatory, and interrogative, employing strong terms such as "arbitrariness" and "display of full authority." The appeal is a blend of legal referencing (the Constitution) and a political attack against the government's decision-making procedures. The tone is demanding and suspicious, particularly regarding upcoming confiscation plans.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, employing strong metaphors (e.g., "building a Potemkin village") and emotional descriptions (e.g., "an immeasurably horrifying mire"). The speaker demands concrete answers and data from the ministers, but presents their arguments with high intensity, accusing the opposing side of lacking ideas, being complacent, and showing incompetence. Opponents are repeatedly labeled as "green transition proponents."