By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The style is highly combative, critical, and insistent, employing sharp metaphors ("Europe's prison and casino hub," "the tax circus") and accusing the government of running a cynical election campaign. The rhetoric balances logical arguments (tax figures, data from the Statistical Office) with an emotional plea to protect those living in poverty. The speaker requests additional time to elaborate on their positions.

The rhetorical style is concerned and critical, emphasizing the importance of the draft decision under discussion. The speaker employs a narrative, describing a sequence of events leading up to the local elections, to illustrate administrative "chaos" and incompetence. The emotional appeal is amplified by the rhetorical question: "Imagine how it is possible that e-elections have been around for so long, yet our law still hasn't even accounted for such a simple matter."

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and dramatic, demanding the government's resignation and employing strong emotional expressions (e.g., "in agony," "devastating assessment," "total botch job"). Logical arguments and specific data (costs, confidence ratings) are interwoven with political attacks to underscore the scale of the crisis. The speaker utilizes repeated questioning and irony (spending taxpayer money on the tax collection system itself).

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative and critical, especially directed at the Minister of Social Affairs, who is accused of unethical behavior and media leaks. Sharp accusations of wasting public money ("squandering") are employed, and rhetorical questions are raised regarding the activities of the Health Insurance Fund. However, the necessity for constructive answers is simultaneously stressed, and labeling is opposed.

The speaker’s style is predominantly urgent and confrontational, employing strong emotional appeals (referencing tragic accidents and the difficult situation of pensioners). Logical arguments (the necessity of regulations) are interwoven with sharp accusations directed at the coalition, directly referencing donations made to political parties and the prioritization of specific interests. The speech is detailed and formal, but also includes direct rhetorical questions ("How many deaths must still happen?").