By Plenary Sessions: Helir-Valdor Seeder

The speaker's rhetorical style is highly critical and at times sharp, using strong phrases like "stupidity squared" and "utter stupidity." He presents his views using logical arguments and facts (such as the location of development centers), but delivers them with emotional conviction, demanding that the minister present accurate information. The tone is predominantly confrontational and accusatory, especially regarding the topic of regional policy.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and interrogative, employing rhetorical questions to underscore the gravity of the situation ("How have we arrived in such a situation?"). The appeal is strongly logical and relies on citing the evaluations of authorities (supervisory bodies) to lend weight to the critique.

The style is formal, polite, and inquisitive, addressing the rapporteur with respect. The focus is on a logical explanation, seeking to resolve the ambiguity that arose within the commission, without emotional or aggressive appeals.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and procedurally demanding, conveying the sense that the opposition is "suppressed." Strong emotional language is employed (e.g., "utterly cynical," "forcibly linked"), and there is an emphasis on logical and legal correctness. The style is formal yet direct, focusing on procedural facts rather than storytelling.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and confrontational, accusing the government of political infighting and creating confusion. Logical appeals are employed, emphasizing the absence of concrete financial commitments and budgetary coverage. The style is formal, but includes strong judgments, such as "unreasonable conspiracy theory" and "incitement," along with quoting ("allow me to respectfully disagree").

The rhetorical style is formal, logic-based, and critical, focusing on the precise interpretation of laws and procedural rules. Direct questions are posed to the rapporteur and the government, demanding strict adherence to both content and form. Emotional dissatisfaction ("unhappy") is also expressed regarding the resulting procedural confusion.

The tone is serious, analytical, and persuasive, highlighting the significance of the issue and the security threat it poses. It employs numerous logical and factual arguments, drawing upon statistics, legislative history, and direct quotes from the interior minister's statements. The style is formal and detailed, yet it also incorporates emotional assessments, referring to the current practice as a "crazy stance" and underscoring the dignity inherent in citizenship.

The style is combative, urgent, and sharply critical, especially concerning procedural matters, utilizing strong phrases such as "absurd justification," "blatant violation," and "into an insane situation." It consistently appeals to the law, transparency, and common sense, demanding accountability and clarity. The tone is formal, yet emotionally charged when he feels the opposition is being silenced.

The rhetorical style is extremely brief, formal, and repetitive, utilizing standard phrases such as "Thank you!" and "I request a vote on this amendment." The tone is neutral and procedural, without emotional appeals or complex linguistic structures.