By Plenary Sessions: Aleksandr Tšaplõgin

The rhetorical style is highly combative and accusatory, employing strong terms such as "fraud," "fraudsters," and "allowed access to the feeding trough." The appeal targets both economic logic (competitiveness) and emotions (impoverishment, injustice), while simultaneously maintaining the formal structure of a Riigikogu speech.

The rhetorical style is formal and direct, focusing on logical arguments and the presentation of concrete data (e.g., percentages and price differentials). The tone is critical and skeptical, posing pointed questions to the minister regarding the current energy system and the integrity of the market. Instead of emotional appeals, the text relies on data and questions that challenge the fundamental principles of the policy.

The rhetorical style is combative and assertive, utilizing logical arguments (economic laws, the rule of law) and historical examples. The tone is critical, accusing the government of repeating mistakes and political bias, and involves the direct naming of opponents (Michal, Ligi, Taro). The speaker also employs emotional appeals, referencing a "catastrophe" and the "muzzling of society."

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and insistent, employing strong emotional phrases, such as "the shameful 200 euros" and "insane squandering." The speaker balances logical appeals (statistical comparisons concerning the number of officials and GDP spending) with moral appeals addressing social injustice and poverty. The style is formal, yet aims to instill a sense of urgency and indignation in the audience.

The rhetorical style is highly aggressive, critical, and accusatory, framing the situation as the "darkest period" of Estonian democracy. Both emotional appeals (deception, absurdity) and logical arguments are utilized, referencing approval ratings and political culture in other European countries. The tone is formal yet demanding, posing two direct questions regarding the legitimacy of the government's resignation.

The rhetorical style is formal and direct, presenting the minister with sequential, numbered, and specific questions. The tone is analytical and demanding, focusing on logical arguments and the evaluation of project risks and accountability.

The style is formal ("Thank you, esteemed minister!"), but direct and challenging. The argumentation is logical and data-based, presenting the criticism in the form of a question to call into question the minister's awareness of the situation.