By Plenary Sessions: Rain Epler

The speaking style is highly combative, direct, and accusatory, employing sharp phrases such as "Putinistic narrative" and "the red, eastward-looking face." The speaker frequently relies on quoting transcripts and raising procedural questions, but also incorporates personal and regional anecdotes (bog restoration) and vivid figurative expressions (Pandora's Box) to illustrate political and social dangers.

The rhetorical style is confrontational, demanding, and repetitive, particularly when pressing the Prime Minister for answers concerning the suitability of ministers. Both logical argumentation (such as energy cost calculations) and sharp moral judgments are employed, accusing opponents of lying and using Putinist rhetoric.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and accusatory, utilizing illustrative examples (such as the bankers' visit to Stenbock House) to underscore the agreement between the government and the banks. Strong terminology, such as "demagogy" and "the deal was done," is employed, and the integrity of both experts and politicians is called into question. When posing questions, there is a clear intent to broaden the scope of the discussion rather than being confined to narrow answers.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, especially when addressing ministers. Strong emotional language and direct accusations are leveled at the opposition, calling the minister's replies "embarrassing drivel" and accusing him of "shameless lying." While the emphasis is placed on logical arguments and referencing facts (transcripts, statistics), the ultimate goal is to discredit the opponent both politically and personally.

The style is analytical, critical, and at times confrontational, demanding simple and concrete answers from the ministers and labeling one minister's analogy "somewhat foolish." Strong logical arguments are employed, relying on data and official documents to highlight the government's waste and incompetence. He/She concludes one speech on an optimistic note, promising to submit an amendment proposal.

The speaker employs an analytical style that is simultaneously sharply critical and occasionally ironic, utilizing powerful metaphors ("stepping on the rake," "Putin takes the dividend"). He balances logical argumentation (citing data and documents) with emotional appeal (specifically, opposing the labeling of his critique as mere "whining") and presents his viewpoints confidently and in a confrontational manner.

The tone is predominantly critical, demanding, and deeply concerned, particularly regarding demography and family security, where the minister is pressed for a direct answer. Strong emotional and negative analogies (such as "banana republic") are employed to criticize the appointment procedure for senior officials and the overall unethical optics. The style remains formal, yet it includes pointed accusations of demagoguery and evasion of questions.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and interrogative, directed at the Minister and the Chair of the session. The speaker relies on logical arguments and data verification, referencing explanatory memoranda and specific sections of the law directly. The tone is insistent, focusing on assessing the substantive impact and achieving financial clarity.

The rhetorical style is formal, demanding, and directly confrontational, as questions are posed to the Minister of Defense. The speaker relies on logical argumentation and the citation of external sources to compel the minister to answer more specifically and elaborate on his previous statements. Light irony is employed, referencing a potential report made by a ministry employee to Kapo, which suggests underlying political tension.

The rhetorical style is formal and inquiry-driven, aimed directly at the minister to obtain clarification. The tone is analytical and skeptical, focusing on highlighting logical inconsistencies (the ratio between the budget and the number of officials) and potential risks (uncertainty in contracts).

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and at times ironic, particularly when summarizing the arguments presented by the minister, which are dismissed as empty slogans ("a priority must be set"). Logical appeals are employed to highlight the contradictions within the government's budget, while simultaneously posing direct questions about the consequences (fines, failure to meet obligations).