By Plenary Sessions: Lauri Laats

The speaker's style is combative and emotional, yet mixed with numerical evidence; they utilize several areas of address and hope to engage both the public and the faction. An image of a "smoke screen" (referring to the idea of the tax hump) is created, coupled with an emotional emphasis on generating poverty and inequality; the speaker employs interrogative sentences and moral arguments to increase pressure on the opposing side.

The tone is analytical, structured, and question-driven; it utilizes factual evidence from the IMF report and clearly poses questions regarding competence and the future plan. It highlights both positive and negative aspects but refrains from using agitated or emotional rhetoric. The textual argument is supported by numerical examples (33%, 40%) and references to the international context, which lends the discourse prominence, yet maintains a professional demeanor.

Rhetorically, this combines the standard formal debate with non-dynamic criticism. Questions, an irritating tone, and an emphasis on details and facts are employed; occasionally, this involves the evocation of accusations and scandals, but the discussion remains focused on the draft topic and is settled into repetition. The text exhibits both a softening and a sharp style, with emphasis placed on discipline and adherence to the thematic scope.

In the speech, a sharp and incisive style dominates, characterized by emotional and concentrated criticism. Questions are employed, along with strongly worded assessments (e.g., crisis, survival, the state is not managing the economy), and the inclusion of factual data and examples. The emphasis is placed on defining the problem and demanding political accountability; the style is confrontational, but it also extends an invitation for an argumentative and parity-based discussion.

The style is critical and often provocative, employing historical and economic comparisons (for instance, a hotel that looks beautiful from the outside but is surrounded by chaos). The speaker uses questions, exclamations, and visual metaphors (e.g., "green is not green"). A large number of anecdotal examples and personal imagery (Tesla, diesel, child labor) contribute to the emotional impact.

A constructive, question-focused, and data-driven style; it uses specific figures and sources (ERR) and raises questions rather than offering direct endorsements. The tone is critical, but non-hostile, combining fact-based discussion with attention-directing measures.

The emphasis is placed on the decisive and emotional, yet fact-based argument; it repeatedly employs calls for public involvement and broad debate, utilizing questions and emotionally charged references (e.g., public trust, the problems of Ida-Virumaa). It often combines appealing rhetorical elements—such as references to "the people say" and "the three wise men"—which heighten the sense of showmanship and confrontation.

A markedly critical and emotional style; it often employs emotional preambles, questions, and personal observations, along with striking examples (e.g., references to the “surrender of the portfolio” and feedback from the Icelandic embassy). The text features clusters of paragraphs and a strong depiction of resistance, but occasionally also includes references to the desire for cooperation with foreign partners.