By Plenary Sessions: Valdo Randpere

The style is predominantly formal and analytical, particularly when presenting the commission's work, but it also includes personal recollections and light humor ("I enjoy this honor and glory"). The argumentation is strongly logical, focusing on Russia's unreliability in adhering to international treaties. A second speaker introduces a moral and urgent appeal, deeming the preoccupation with treaties inappropriate and absurd given the context of the war.

The rhetorical style is confrontational and critical, focusing heavily on the past mistakes and hypocrisy of the opponents (members of Isamaa). Rhetorical questions and ironic suggestions are employed, such as renaming the tax the "national defense tax" to mitigate public outrage. The tone is analytical, yet it includes sharp personal attacks aimed at undermining the opponents' credibility.

The rhetorical style is highly confrontational, personal, and sarcastic, employing direct accusations and questions aimed at the opponent ("what bug has bitten you, Henn?"). The speaker attacks the adversary by exploiting logical inconsistencies and using emotional persuasion, even referencing the language teacher's reaction in the grave.

The style is predominantly analytical and logical, but simultaneously confrontational, especially when engaging the opposition, using direct address and rhetorical questions. He/She criticizes opponents' arguments by pointing to their political motives and shaky foundation (e.g., lawyers' "bought" opinions), and authoritatively defends the integrity of the system.