By Plenary Sessions: Tõnis Lukas

The style is formal, analytical, and detailed, focusing on the technical aspects of policy mechanisms and funding. The tone is concerned and demanding regarding the issues surrounding science funding, yet it offers constructive solutions and recognizes previous positive agreements. The discourse is strongly logic-based, relying on specific funding proportions and draft legislation.

The rhetorical style is critical and forceful, especially when addressing the government (e.g., regarding the teachers' strike issue). Both logical argumentation (funding models, practical problems of consolidating management) and value-based appeals (regional balance, the essence of Estonia) are utilized. The style is formal, employing specific political and administrative terminology.

The style is critical and demanding, particularly when addressing the Prime Minister, emphasizing the government's primary duty to prevent a strike and societal stress. The speaker employs logical arguments, relying on promises made in the coalition agreement and specific monetary figures, and is straightforward in refuting the opponents' false assertions.

The style is pressing, serious, and intensely critical, particularly regarding the government's actions, which are labeled "irresponsible policy" and "ridiculous bungling." The speaker balances logical arguments (e.g., the necessity of an organized transition) with powerful emotional warnings, asserting that the very foundations of statehood are at risk. The tone is formal, yet it includes sharp accusations.

The style is formal and courteous, employing the forms of address "esteemed chairman" and "respected rapporteur." The rhetoric is direct and question-driven, focusing on establishing the facts and preemptively taking into account potential limitations on answering (confidentiality).

The rhetorical style is urgent and critical, utilizing metaphors (e.g., "two waves breaking each other" and "partisan tourism") to describe the situation. The speaker balances logical argumentation (wage comparison, the need for funding) with direct appeals for the government to act quickly to prevent the strike. The tone is generally combative, but it acknowledges the President's statesmanlike and moderate conduct.