By Plenary Sessions: Urmas Kruuse

The rhetorical style is critical and analytical, beginning with a direct rebuttal to the minister's claims ("I certainly cannot agree"). Logical arguments and references to financial data are employed to support the position that education may be a more effective investment than increasing healthcare funding. The tone is formal and focuses on the political substance.

The style is formal, analytical, and inquisitive, focusing on detailed questions directed at the minister or the presenter. Although the speaker refers to themselves as a non-specialist, they use complex technical language and present logical, strategic dilemmas, attempting to strike a balance between climate goals and security.

The rhetorical style is formal and respectful, addressing the presiding officer and the rapporteur with deference. A logical and interrogative approach is employed, seeking verification of the facts presented in the debate and avoiding emotional appeals.

The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and interrogative, focused on demanding specific data and analysis from the minister. A logical appeal is employed, insisting that political objectives must have a firm scientific basis. The speaker is also cognizant of potential counterarguments (such as teachers' concerns regarding the forced progression or "dragging students through classes").