By Plenary Sessions: Mart Maastik

The rhetoric is combative, sarcastic, and data-driven. Irony is employed toward the ministers, alongside strong political accusations (such as the "poodle of the little brothers"). Logical arguments are backed by research findings, lending the presentation an authoritative and critical tone while simultaneously demanding accountability and explanations.

The rhetorical style is critical and skeptical, especially in questions directed at the minister, where specific data and proof are demanded. Logical and economic arguments are employed, highlighting the impracticality and high cost of regulations. The overall tone is pragmatic, also utilizing common vernacular expressions ("Half an egg is better than an empty shell").

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, utilizing strong emotional expressions such as "green madness," "it makes you want to weep," and "the dustbin of history." Extensive use is made of sarcasm and rhetorical questions to highlight the coalition's hypocrisy, particularly concerning social policy and taxation. The appeals are primarily logical, focusing on economic consequences and the loss of competitiveness.

The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and interrogative, focusing on logical argumentation and the clarification of legal details. The speaker presents a series of hypothetical yet concrete scenarios designed to compel the opposing party to specify their responsibilities, all while maintaining a neutrally investigative tone.

The rhetorical style is formal, yet compelling and practical, highlighting the visibility and urgency of the problem ("All of you can see what is happening on the streets"). The appeal is primarily logical and solution-oriented, focusing on the necessity of improving the legal framework to prevent the urban space from turning into a "storage lot."

The discourse is analytical, critical, and skeptical, frequently employing rhetorical questions to cast doubt on the sensibility of policies ("Does any of this even make sense?"). The style is formal and relies on logical arguments, emphasizing the cost-benefit ratio and practical examples (e.g., the experience of a housing association). Although the Minister receives well wishes for success and strength, "showcase projects" are subsequently sharply criticized.

The style is formal, and initially, the question is allowed to be formulated calmly, but the tone quickly turns critical and demanding. The speaker employs logical argumentation and budget data to challenge the minister's claims, calling the underestimation of the impact of energy costs "ridiculous."