By Plenary Sessions: Anti Allas

The rhetorical style is formal, yet insistent and demanding, posing direct and repeated questions to the minister. A logical appeal is employed, stressing that making strategic decisions is the minister's "ABC"—the absolute basics—and that the absence of a long-term perspective has created serious problems. The tone is critical and purposeful.

The style starts out formal and respectful but quickly turns repetitive, demanding, and frustrated because of the lack of answers. Logical contrasts are employed (tax gifts versus taxing the poor), and the third address is overtly procedural and accusatory concerning the minister's inability to provide a response.

The rhetorical style is critical, detailed, and passionate, especially regarding the unfair treatment of landowners, using phrases like "it really makes me sigh" and "it leaves me speechless." It strongly appeals to issues of justice and morality, stressing that "people in the weakest position should not have to bear the entire cost of societal value alone." It utilizes both emotional appeals and concrete procedural and economic arguments.

The rhetorical style is formal, but the tone becomes urgent and concerned when discussing the crisis in the education sector. The text employs both emotional appeals (teachers' mental exhaustion, the teacher as a "doormat") and logical argumentation (analysis of the tax model, the socio-economic effects of the reform). The speaker aims to convince the minister and the government to take bolder action.

The rhetorical style is critical and demanding, employing strong phrases to describe the situation, such as "utter chaos," "complete mess," and "legal labyrinth." The speaker focuses on procedural and logical errors, demanding explanations from the minister and officials regarding the failed process that has dragged on for the past year and a half. The tone is formal, yet sharp and accusatory in substance.

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and emotionally charged, employing strong words like "robbery" and highlighting injustice. To illustrate this injustice, a figurative and easily understood example is used—a kitchen whose use is forbidden. The speaker demands specific and rapid solutions from the Prime Minister, maintaining a demanding tone.

The rhetorical style is direct, analytical, and critical, employing phrases such as "Let's talk about things as they are." The speaker poses sharp rhetorical questions concerning the opponents' motives ("where did this enlightenment suddenly arrive for the Centre Party") and the expediency of their policy choices. The tone is formal and politically pointed, balancing logical argumentation (the lack of necessary legislation) with a political attack.

The rhetoric is confident and at times defensive, particularly when advocating for regional interests, highlighting the personal utility derived from advancing these projects. It leverages a strong regional identity, contrasting the financial realities of Southeast Estonia with the spending habits of Tallinn. The style is predominantly narrative and persuasive, underscoring both the genuine necessity and the current geopolitical security situation.

The style is pragmatic and appeals to logic, emphasizing economic arguments while steering clear of populism. He uses a powerful metaphor ("throwing the baby out with the bathwater"), and the tone is critical regarding the ministries' inaction. His speech is disrupted by the prevailing noise in the hall, which he directly addresses.

The rhetorical style is critical, concerned, and pressing, emphasizing the severity of the country's structural problems and the necessity of statesmanship. The speaker employs logical arguments, citing economic indicators and expert opinions, countering the populism that spreads "beautiful lies." The tone is formal and analytical, including direct questions addressed to the minister.

The speaker's style is predominantly formal, but becomes very passionate and urgent on the topics of regional policy and banking, describing the situation in Southeast Estonia as a "matter of life and death" and the behavior of the banking sector as "truly evil." He/She criticizes the uncertain tone of the minister's responses and balances logical policy arguments (investment versus expenditure) with strong emotional appeals ("speak more boldly," "we won't give up an inch").