By Plenary Sessions: Rain Epler

The style is predominantly combative and forceful, especially on economic topics, warning that incorrect decisions will lead to "poverty" and constitute a "dead end." He uses repetition and simplification to make his message understandable to the coalition members. Regarding social issues, he employs provocative hypothetical examples (entering a changing room, hitting back/retaliating) to illustrate the absurdity and danger of the new definitions.

The rhetorical style is predominantly confrontational, demanding, and procedurally sharp. The speaker poses pointed questions, accusing the minister of concealment and offensive behavior, and submits an official protest to the session chair for violating order. Both logical argumentation (the demand for data) and personal insinuations (the minister's age and memory) are employed.

The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and ironic, employing powerful metaphors ("fools," "rolling logs uphill") to ridicule the government's actions. The appeal is made to logic and common sense, particularly concerning costs and efficiency ("as every idiot can see"), while simultaneously criticizing the passivity and lack of expertise among coalition members.

The speaker’s style is combative and accusatory, employing sharp rhetoric and sarcasm, particularly when challenging the minister's credibility regarding public support. Emotional appeals are utilized (e.g., "plundering from the bottom up," "class hatred narrative"), and the necessity of officially recording the opposition/dissent in the transcript is stressed.

The style is formal, respectful (e.g., "Thank you, good Presiding Officer!" "Mr. Minister!"), and analytical. The argumentation relies purely on logic, repeatedly stressing the absence of "economic logic" in the Minister's response. The tone is interrogative and aimed at eliciting a detailed explanation of the policy vision.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and direct, accusing the Prime Minister of misleading the public and demanding a clear justification for the confiscation. Both logical arguments (referencing expert analysis and the law's original intent) and dramatic imagery (such as the comparison to a science fiction novel and a "thought crime") are used to underscore the danger inherent in this legal precedent. The tone is formal, yet highly adversarial.

The rhetorical style is skeptical and critical, demanding concrete answers and figures from ministers, particularly when dealing with financial issues. Direct quotes and rhetorical questions are employed to underscore the unreality of the government's promises ("Where exactly is he going to conjure up that money?"). The text concludes with a procedural note aimed at ensuring mathematical accuracy in the official transcript, thereby highlighting the critical importance of detail.