By Plenary Sessions: Valdo Randpere

Direct criticism is aimed at the premise of Varro Vooglaid's question, implying that Vooglaid should be aware of the principles of state sovereignty. Furthermore, he calls into question the actions of the City of Tallinn (specifically, the right of superficies and the lease agreement) concerning the Russian Orthodox Church, demanding government intervention.

The main criticism is aimed at the free higher education reform that the Isamaa party aggressively pushed through in 2011. The criticism is policy-based and historical, linking that decision to the current funding woes facing the education system. The intensity of the criticism is moderate, and it is presented in the form of questions.

The main criticism is directed at the coalition partner (Eesti 200) and the Minister of Education, who are accused of breaking pre-election promises and demonstrating insufficient leadership capacity. The criticism is intense and focuses on political discord and the shifting of responsibility toward the Prime Minister. The timing and objective of the teachers' strike are also being criticized.

The main opponents are the bill’s presenters (Kert Kingo, Varro Vooglaid) and the broader opposition, who are primarily criticized for their rhetoric and lack of procedural quality. He challenges the opponents' claims that an "oriental dictatorship" prevails in Estonia and that "no one is responsible for anything," dismissing this as inappropriate and overly exaggerated sloganizing.

The main target is EKRE, which is being criticized both for its value-based positions (opposition to surrogacy) and its procedural conduct (submitting thousands of amendments). The criticism is intense, and the objective is to force the opposition to publicly declare its future actions regarding the bill, citing their previous behavior.