By Plenary Sessions: Aleksandr Tšaplõgin

The rhetorical style is formal (addressing the respected chairman of the session and the minister), yet it is sharply critical and confrontational. Targeted rhetorical questions are employed to cast doubt on the legitimacy and consistency of the government's actions. The second speech utilizes a provocative hypothetical scenario (firecrackers and Molotov cocktails aimed at the parliament building) to underscore the potential discord within the government.

The rhetorical style is critical and confrontational, accusing ministers of lacking economic expertise and labeling the government's actions as "a mess." The argumentation is primarily logical and data-driven, focusing on economic principles and challenging the government's forecasts. The tone is urgent, emphasizing the ongoing economic decline.

The rhetorical style is sharp, aggressive, and dramatic, employing strong analogies (Haiti, civil war) and rhetorical questions to underscore the absurdity of the government's actions. The tone is accusatory and ironic, particularly regarding the minister's self-criticism and the characterization of the government's activities as a "national sport" or a "natural disaster."

The address is formal and courteous, directed toward the respected chair of the session and the rapporteur. The style is inquisitive and slightly skeptical, employing a rhetorical question to cast doubt on the governing coalition's motives. The emphasis is on logical and procedural argumentation.

The rhetorical style is critical, combative, and forceful, employing strong emotional language like "into the senseless Rail Baltic project" and "the robbery of the poor Estonian people." The speaker balances logical economic arguments (economic slowdown) with sharp accusations concerning government spending. Although the substance is aggressive, the addresses remain formal ("Esteemed Chairman of the Session! Esteemed Colleagues!").

The style is cautionary and emotional, employing strong ideological claims regarding the dangers of state control and the destruction of families. The speaker utilizes rhetorical questions ("Do we want to live in a country...?") and presents a clear, uncompromising opposition.