By Plenary Sessions: Aleksandr Tšaplõgin

The tone is critical and urgent, stressing that democracy must not be put at risk. Rhetorical questions are employed, and the incompetence of officials is highlighted ("the answer was funny") to underscore the lack of trustworthiness in e-elections. The style is balanced, combining logical arguments (statistical examples) with a powerful value-based appeal regarding public trust in the state.

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and confrontational, employing strong emotional language (e.g., "enormous sum," "unviable project," "destruction of the economy"). Personal attacks are utilized, linking political decisions to the prime minister's alleged financial interests, even while formally distancing themselves from direct accusations ("I am not implying anything"). Numerous rhetorical questions are posed to underscore the unreasonableness of the government's actions.

The rhetorical style is direct, interrogative, and strongly skeptical, aimed squarely at the minister. Charged language is employed to emphasize the potential threat (migrants who have sharply increased the crime rate), which lends the overall tone a sense of alarm and deep concern.

The rhetorical style is combative and insistent, utilizing strong emotional appeals regarding poverty and hunger, and sharp moral contrasts (an extra piece of meat on a pensioner's table versus the good life enjoyed by activists). The speaker issues direct challenges to opponents (to try living on 200 euros themselves) and employs simplified, yet impactful language to frame budgetary choices as a moral dilemma.