By Plenary Sessions: Toomas Uibo

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, directed straight at the minister to demand accountability. The tone is critical and logical, using a specific case (the film campus) to call into question the quality of the state's spending and the fulfillment of its promises. The speaker uses a rhetorical question to emphasize whether this constitutes good use of public funds.

The tone is well-reasoned, passionate, and at times humorous, acknowledging the palpable tension in the room. He employs both logical arguments (competitiveness, the cost of future billions) and simplified yet memorable analogies (the price of a liter of milk and subsidies) to clarify complex issues. The style is direct and provocative, accusing opponents of relying on false data and lacking ambition.

The style is contrasting: one speaker uses a personal anecdote and a concerned tone to highlight a social problem, emphasizing emotional appeal. The second speaker delivers an optimistic, visionary, and strategic presentation, while simultaneously employing sharp criticism directed at opponents who fear change and cling to outdated models. The overall tone is formal, but it includes a strong call to action to dare to dream bigger.

The style is defensive and persuasive, aiming to counteract the opposition's narrative by stressing the responsibility incumbent upon the state and the necessity of making sacrifices. Simple analogies (like the company example) are employed to clarify financial issues, and the speaker addresses listeners and guests directly to avoid giving a one-sided impression. The tone is serious, underscoring the inevitability brought about by the current security situation.