By Agendas: Juku-Kalle Raid

The speaker addresses the conduct and assertions made by the other members (Lauri Laats and Jürgen Ligi). The disagreement is aimed at the procedural ambiguity caused by Laats, and the speaker personally denies that Ligi insulted him, thus distancing himself from the role of being the victim of the insult.

No data available. There is no direct criticism of opponents, although the rhetorical conclusion ("Lõpetame ära selle Eesti NSV" [Let's put an end to this Estonian SSR]) hints at opposition to outdated or Soviet-era practices that the draft bill is intended to change.

The primary opposition is directed at the Moscow Patriarchate and Patriarch Kirill, who is criticized for submitting to Kremlin forces and for declaring genocide a holy war. Secondary criticism is aimed at EKRE, in whose positions the speaker sees a schizophrenic contradiction regarding the church’s subordination to Moscow.

The primary criticism is aimed at Eesti 200 due to their superficial and inappropriate humor, which is criticized both for its substance and its style. Furthermore, personal and sharp humor is directed at their colleague Gaute, who is referred to as the wearer of a "red pervert costume."

The confrontation is aimed at the previous speaker for Eesti 200 and Jaak Aab, demanding confirmation of the prior agreement from them. The criticism is not personal; rather, it focuses on verifying the validity of the political promise (raising the limits).

There is no direct criticism or attacking of opponents. The oppositional stance is expressed only by questioning the speed of the procedural process, not by criticizing political opponents.

There is no direct confrontation, but the speaker challenges the opposition regarding their political consistency. The objection is aimed at the bill's lack of comprehensive integrity, as it fails to address the balance between rights and responsibilities.

The main opponents are Isamaa and EKRE, who are facing sharp criticism—and astonishment—for coming to the defense of the Moscow Patriarchate. The criticism is politically charged and highlights the inconsistency in the opponents' values, given that these are parties that brand themselves as national conservative. The backlash is intense and reflects deep disappointment over their conduct.

The confrontation is directed at a specific individual, who is being criticized or challenged through a personal habit (smoking). The attack is more rhetorical and personal than politically motivated, and its intensity is more ironic than hostile.

The speaker sharply criticizes the Social Democrats (SocDems) for their claim that the "red monument" could represent societal cohesion, deeming this assertion absolutely arbitrary and ridiculous. Criticism is also leveled at the uniformity and unthought-out nature of the proposal put forward by Jaak Valge. Furthermore, "strong disagreements" within the coalition regarding the topic under discussion are noted.