By Plenary Sessions: Siim Pohlak

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative and critical, employing sharp metaphors (e.g., "doping" regarding expense reimbursements) and personal anecdotes (Keldo's taxi ride). The appeals are a blend of logical arguments (financial savings, reduction of bureaucracy) and emotional pressure (the question of fairness, the economic crisis). Direct challenges are also issued to the coalition, urging them to lead by example.

The style is formal and substantive, utilizing a polite address to the Riigikogu ("Dear colleagues, servants of the people"). The tone is serious, stressing the urgency of resolving the social problem, with references made both to the legislative procedure and to a previous unsuccessful attempt. Both logical (the substance of the draft law) and emotional (the plight of cancer patients) appeals are employed.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and forceful, employing strong accusations (such as government cynicism, or acting "Goebbels-style"). The address is formal, yet it incorporates emotional descriptions of the public's forced austerity and the crowding in grocery stores. The argumentation is grounded in both economic rationale (taxes should not be raised during a crisis) and comparisons drawn from the tax statistics of various European countries.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, utilizing emotionally charged terms such as "post-slavery democracy." The speaker presents their views with conviction, stressing that the populace is being kept away from the decision-making process. The argumentation relies more on ideological opposition and rhetorical questions concerning European practices.

The style is formal and straightforward, addressing the Director and the Prime Minister respectfully. The tone is skeptical and demanding, focusing on logical appeal and the search for facts. The speaker poses a question regarding the budgetary cost of a hypothetical scenario (tax exemption), demanding a specific figure.

The style is sharp, critical, and confrontational, employing rhetorical questions to challenge the opponent's beliefs ("Do you actually even believe that yourself?"). Negative and accusatory language is used, describing the government's actions as avoiding responsibility and "passing the buck." The tone is skeptical and emphasizes that political measures will only result in negative consequences (tax increases).

The style is extremely confrontational, critical, and emotionally charged, employing sharp rhetoric such as "advocate for the banks," "narrow-minded attitude," and "extremely cynical and arrogant." The speaker makes a strong appeal to public interest and justice, drawing a stark contrast between people facing hardship and profit-making banks.