By Plenary Sessions: Helir-Valdor Seeder

The speaking style is highly confrontational and aggressive, including direct accusations of deliberate stalling and obstruction. Personal and dramatic elements are employed, for example, declaring oneself "at least twice as smart" as the minister and describing the work of the parliament as a "strange performance." The tone is formally polite ("Honorable Minister"), but the content is sharply critical and emotional.

The rhetorical style is confrontational and procedurally correct, though sharp in substance, given that the prime minister is being accused of repeatedly disseminating false information. The speaker attempts to remain courteous but employs strong accusations ("is spreading misinformation") and assumes the critical responsibility of publicly debunking the false information. The tone is logical and fact-based, concentrating on specifying the contents of the draft legislation.

The rhetorical style is critical, analytical, and confrontational, focusing on the honesty and transparency of government actions. The speaker employs direct accusations of dishonesty and lack of transparency ("it was certainly not precise and, I would say, also not entirely honest"), demanding explanations regarding methodological errors. The appeals are primarily logical and procedural.

The rhetorical style is highly aggressive, accusatory, and urgent, emphasizing a systemic pattern of the opponent's inaction. Strong and emotional language is used (e.g., calling the minister a threat to internal security, KAPO's "cry for help"), and long lists of the government's alleged failures are presented. The speaker employs direct personal attacks, questioning the minister's intelligence ("I do not believe that you are so stupid").

The rhetorical style is polite (addressing the chairperson) yet decisive, and includes an apology for a procedural error. Both formal parliamentary language and figurative expressions are used (e.g., "stifling the momentum," "don't sweep this under the rug") to emphasize the necessity of adopting the proposal.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and at times confrontational, accusing ministers of incompetence and failing to provide answers. Rhetorical questions are employed, and the speaker demands that detailed impact analyses (such as the cumulative effect of taxes on families) be read aloud. The speaker appeals both to logic (by referencing bureaucracy and duplication) and to statesmanlike thinking, while simultaneously highlighting legislative precedents and historical context.

The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and demanding, focusing on logical and procedural arguments. The speaker employs a direct, slightly combative address aimed at the members of the coalition, stressing the theme of institutional dignity ("This is not a dignified attitude toward Parliament").