By Plenary Sessions: Jaanus Karilaid

The rhetorical style is combative and critical, employing strong negative assessments such as "absurdly" and "as a waste of money." The speaker contrasts the government's powerful rhetoric with the actual outcomes ("the result is, naturally, zero"), thereby highlighting political inefficiency. The appeals themselves are a blend of logical arguments (that existing structures are sufficient) and emotional frustration concerning regional inequality.

The style is formal and interrogative, focusing on facts and details. The tone is neutral and logical, with the aim of obtaining specific financial data from the presenter. Emotional or narrative elements are not used.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and urgent, utilizing strong emotional and evaluative expressions (e.g., "extremely hypocritical, extremely deceitful, hollow," "tax chaos"). The speaker contrasts the minister's rhetorical confidence with the actual political decisions (cuts) and repeatedly uses rhetorical questions to undermine the opponent's position. The appeals are primarily logical, relying on the link between policy and crime indicators.

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, addressing the speaker with a request to clarify the legal options ("Please, enlighten me"). The tone is serious and concerned, focusing on a logical appeal by presenting a concrete scenario of a systemic attack (it attacks the state, language, and mind, and proceeds to court).