By Plenary Sessions: Vladimir Arhipov

The rhetorical style is critical and argumentative, balancing emotional appeals (such as references to graves and families) with logical demands (specifically, the lack of impact assessments). It frequently employs antithesis (e.g., "politics is not slogans") and cites authoritative sources to underscore the necessity of inclusion. The tone is formal, yet the substance is sharp and accusatory.

The style is formal and respectful, directed towards the presiding officer and the rapporteur. The speaker utilizes a rhetorical question to underscore the flaws of e-voting and compel the rapporteur to justify their stance. The tone is analytical and challenging.

The speech is combative and urgent in tone, employing strong metaphors (such as "a plaster on a wound" or "the foundation is rotten") and emotional appeals (for instance, claiming it "punishes working"). The style is formal, yet it includes sharp criticism, going so far as to label the taxes "predatory taxes." It utilizes both logical economic arguments (the failure of revenue collection) and value-based calls to action (standing up for the people and regional policy).

The rhetorical style is critical and demanding, repeatedly employing rhetorical questions to underscore the failure of the reform and the issue of accountability. The tone is one of concern, highlighting rising prices and the pressure families are facing. The appeal targets both logic (the distribution of the financial burden) and social justice.

The rhetorical style is critical and confrontational, employing figurative metaphors (like "candy wrapper" and "bitter candy") to discredit the substance of the proposed bill. The speaker poses direct questions and disputes the opposing side's claims of a "success story," though they simultaneously acknowledge the opposition's skillful presentation. The overall tone is argumentative and insistent.

The rhetorical style is critical and insistent, employing strong emotional appeals, particularly when describing the poverty line as "shameful." Direct questions and moral arguments (referred to as an "undeniable truth") are used to underscore the state's responsibility and criticize bureaucratic foot-dragging. The tone is anxious and demands swift action, also referencing dangerous events in Latvia.