By Plenary Sessions: Vadim Belobrovtsev

The rhetorical style is urgent, critical, and combative, emphasizing the critical state of the economy and the government's inaction. The speaker relies heavily on logical arguments and data (such as bank profits and inflation rates) but also employs emotional appeals, accusing the government of taking the very last penny from people's pockets. Prime Minister Kaja Kallas's claim that "we whine ourselves poor" is labeled cynical and unconvincing.

The rhetorical style is direct, questioning, and confrontational, especially toward the prime minister, who is publicly accused of "yet another lie." Logical argumentation is employed, focusing on offering alternatives and challenging the government's claims. The tone is concerned and demanding, particularly regarding issues affecting social target groups.

The rhetorical style is critical and demanding, employing strong emotional language (such as "mockery of educators") to characterize the government's initial proposal. The speaker poses direct and specific questions, focusing on exposing political contradictions and demanding a clear message for PPA staff.

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, aimed directly at the minister. The speaker employs a specific and provocative quote (from Donald Trump) to underscore the gravity of the situation, thereby establishing a logical foundation for raising the issue of European defense autonomy. The tone is serious and concerned, highlighting the urgent need for action.

The rhetorical style is analytical and critical, emphasizing logic and justice, especially concerning the question of why the birth of twins is "less important" or why it is "mysticism." The speaker uses formal language and structured argumentation, first presenting support for the idea and then offering a detailed critique regarding its shortcomings.

The rhetorical style is critical, direct, and accusatory, combining economic arguments (cost calculation) with emotional appeal (a difficult economic situation, a hole in the family budget). Challenging rhetorical questions are used to call into question the minister's belief in the measure's usefulness and the government's true motives.