By Plenary Sessions: Tõnis Lukas

The style is insistent, self-assured, and at times combative, stressing the urgency of the moment and the disastrous consequences of delays. Both logical arguments (references to Language Inspectorate complaints, a list of legal loopholes) and strong emotional warnings ("submissiveness," "won't get out of the swamp," a security issue) are employed. The speaker refers to their draft bill as the "Confidence Bill" and is critical of the government's "slack and subservient behavior."

The rhetorical style is skeptical and questioning, casting doubt on the opposing side's idealized views regarding the sentiments of Russian citizens. Formal address is used (esteemed Chairman, good Minister), and emphasis is placed on logical argumentation, which is grounded in the tense situation and the precarious status of immigrants. The tone is concerned and cautionary.

The style is sharply critical and urgent, employing strong assessments such as "fraud," "nonsense," and "catastrophe." It combines logical arguments (the threat of the organization dissolving) with emotional appeal, emphasizing the lack of understanding of responsibility and privileges among the Tallinn leadership. The discourse is formal and focuses on dissecting problems, rather than presenting data.

The rhetorical style is serious and moral, employing strong emotional terms such as "massacre" and contrasting them with a message of peace. The speaker poses direct and challenging questions to the presenter, demanding accountability from church leaders.