By Plenary Sessions: Valdo Randpere

The rhetorical style is analytical and confident, beginning with an expression of personal surprise directed at the questioner, yet maintaining a respectful tone. He/She employs both logical arguments (state sovereignty) and an emotional and historical reference (the church as a "thorn in the side"). The speaker expresses a desire to be even "a bit more radical" in addressing the subject matter.

The style is formal and direct, presenting the Prime Minister with a series of sharp questions. The tone is analytical and concerned, focusing on logical connections (free higher education and lack of funds) and the use of international examples to support the arguments. Instead of emotional appeals, the assessment of policy consequences dominates.

The rhetorical style is direct, critical, and preemptively provocative, acknowledging potential political incorrectness. The speaker employs logical argumentation, highlighting the contradiction between previous promises and the current reality. Finally, a powerful and strong statement is demanded from the minister.

The rhetorical style starts off humorous and self-deprecating (referencing the infrequency of speaking), but subsequently becomes sharply critical of the opponents' rhetoric. He/She employs logical arguments and institutional explanations, accusing the opposition of "dreadful political sloganeering" and over-dramatizing the situation.

The style is direct, critical, and structured, posing a two-part question that combines substantive pressure (regarding surrogate motherhood) and procedural pressure (regarding tactics). The speaker employs sharp rhetoric to compel the opposing side to clarify the link between their previous value-based stances and their current procedural strategy. Finally, a demand is made that EKRE must declare its intentions regarding every draft bill.