By Plenary Sessions: Züleyxa Izmailova

The rhetorical style is predominantly critical, sharp, and confrontational, especially towards the opposition party. Both logical arguments (the strategic objective of tax policy) and emotional appeals (the smell of smoke causing nausea, the sums lost by the elderly) are utilized. The tone becomes highly intense towards the end, accusing the opposing side of taking up the defense of criminals.

The rhetorical style is sharply aggressive, accusatory, and emotionally charged, expressing personal frustration and embarrassment regarding the minister's responses. Direct accusations are employed (e.g., "Why are you hiding the analyses?") along with rhetorical questions to highlight the minister's unethical conduct. The tone remains formal, but the content is confrontational, focusing on ethical and procedural appeals.

The rhetorical style is critical, direct, and at times confrontational, featuring sharp questions and accusing opponents of vagueness or negligence. Both emotional appeals (the difficult situation of families) and logical argumentation (questioning the logic of economic policy) are employed. The politician uses strong language, accusing the Reform Party of "throwing dust in people's eyes."

The rhetorical style is formal, serious, and value-driven, employing strong emotional appeals, and referencing the "shared cultural conscience" and "the sacred and inviolable." The speaker draws a clear contrast between values and economic gain (euros, cubic meters of timber), posing the questions sharply and insistently.

The rhetorical style is formal, yet sharply confrontational and critical, especially towards the Minister, whose speech is labeled demagogic and "charming." The speaker poses direct questions that contain accusations (e.g., acting in the interests of monopolists) and expresses strong skepticism regarding the honesty of the responses ("the hope for this is very small"). The appeals are primarily logical, focusing on factual errors and the consequences of the policy (high prices).

The rhetorical style is highly passionate, accusatory, and urgent, emphasizing moral responsibility and matters of conscience. Strong emotional appeals and sharp criticism are employed (e.g., calling the situation a "total disaster" and the care home a "house of horrors"). Although the address is formally directed to the minister, the tone is predominantly confrontational and demanding, rather than conciliatory.