By Plenary Sessions: Rene Kokk

The rhetorical style is critical and directly questioning, calling into doubt the adequacy of the justifications presented by the minister. The speaker employs logical argumentation to underscore the principles of social policy formation and to demand accountability through the execution of an audit. The tone is formal and demanding.

The rhetorical style is insistent, critical, and frustrated, repeatedly employing rhetorical questions to emphasize the inaction of the government and officials ("What exactly are we still stuck on?"). The speaker uses direct and sometimes informal language, accusing the Ministry of Education and Research of "stubbornness." The appeal is primarily logical, focusing on the failure to implement known solutions.

The overall tone is predominantly factual, logical, and urgent, emphasizing the need to end a decades-long delay. The argumentation is strongly data-driven, referencing studies and the practices of neighboring countries (Finland, Sweden, Germany). Sharp irony is also employed to attack coalition members for their absence and their double standards regarding integration issues.

The rhetorical style is formal and respectful (as it is addressed to the minister), but the tone is concerned and critical. The speaker employs logical appeals, supporting their arguments with specific examples of system failures, while stressing the sheer volume of issues.

The style is direct and critical, employing both a procedural framework and emotional appeals. The tone is concerned and urgent, particularly concerning the issue of education, highlighting the tension and injustice of the situation ("forcibly making Estonians out of them").

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, critical, and emotional, accusing the government of incompetence and dishonesty ("Speak honestly"). Strong contrasts are employed, pitting the reality of rural life against the officials' lack of understanding, and it is emphasized that the people are not stupid. The tone is formal but passionate, focusing more on value stances and social consequences than on technical data.

The tone of the address is sharply critical and accusatory, expressing disappointment ("It's a shame about that") regarding the Prime Minister's method of presenting partial facts. The emphasis is on the logical demand to present the full context and "the other side of the equation," accusing the opponent of deliberately concealing information.