By Plenary Sessions: Henn Põlluaas

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and insistent, stressing that policy decisions must be evidence-based, not a matter of faith. Both logical arguments (references to OECD reports and the cancelled tender) and emotional appeals concerning the erosion of public trust are employed. Opponents are accused of outright lying ("blatant lie") and offering pathetic responses, often utilizing rhetorical questions to highlight the government's inaction.

The rhetorical style is sharply aggressive and confrontational, particularly concerning the minister's responses, which are deemed evasive. Strong value-based arguments (identity, taxpayer money) and rhetorical questions are employed to express outrage and demand clarification. The tone is accusatory and procedurally critical, stressing that the minister is answering "something entirely different."

The style of address is formal and respectful, directed toward the esteemed presiding officer and the rapporteur. The rhetoric focuses on logical analysis and the utilization of data, posing direct questions in order to obtain a specific political forecast. The tone is neutral and information-seeking.

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, alarming, and accusatory, employing strong emotional appeals and historical comparisons to the Soviet occupation and Russification. The description of the government's actions relies on labeling ("genuinely Soviet mixed schools") and extreme terminology such as "genocide" and "criminal."

The rhetoric is urgent, emotional, and highly combative, employing powerful imagery ("the horrors of war," "murdered people"). Absurd comparisons are used to ridicule the opponents' actions (Võhma/Võõpsu versus Tallinn schools). The piece concludes with a direct accusation, questioning whether the government’s actions serve Putin’s interests, which demonstrates an extremely sharp level of confrontation.

The style is extremely confrontational, emotional, and accusatory, employing sharp phrases such as "propaganda glorification of the government of liars" and "pathological lie." The speaker emphasizes the unity of patriotism and love for the homeland, contrasting this with the government's actions, which he labels "sabotage" and "criminal." He uses personal address and an anecdote (a Defense League course) to criticize the Minister of the Interior.