By Plenary Sessions: Tiit Maran

The speaker's tone is critical and questioning, expressing "bewilderment" regarding the solutions discussed by the commission. The style is logical and focuses on practical shortcomings, utilizing personal experience to substantiate the arguments. The speaker poses direct rhetorical questions concerning the competence of state bodies.

The rhetorical style is serious, analytical, and forceful, particularly when addressing issues of inequality and crises. The speaker relies heavily on logical arguments and data, frequently employing international comparisons (Denmark, the USA, Finland) to substantiate their positions. Furthermore, they use direct value judgments, labeling certain policies as unjust and foolish, and admonish opponents for their excessive self-congratulation.

The rhetorical style is sharply aggressive and emotional, employing strong moral judgments such as "brutal marauding and looting" and "unprecedented." The speaker balances the emotional appeal with detailed data, but the primary objective is to call into question the opponent's technocratic mindset and values. He repeats the questions insistently, having failed to receive an answer to the initial question.

The speaker's style is analytical and engaging, starting with an acknowledgment of how interesting the discussion is. A rhetorical question is used to challenge the opposing side's position, emphasizing the logical argument regarding the necessity of speed and effectiveness in the process when fighting against monopolistic interests.