By Plenary Sessions: Jaak Valge

The confrontation is directed against the initiators of the draft bill and the work of the Constitutional Committee, criticizing the explanatory memorandum for being flimsy, primitive, and for failing to involve experts. He rejects opponents' attempts to label conservatives as cynical or reactionary, defining these labels as Marxist. The opponents' ability to persuade is considered low, but the possibility of compromise is not ruled out ("they may still try").

The main opponent is Mr. Ligi, whose political choices are sharply criticized. The criticism is policy-based, focusing on the detrimental nature of the tax hump and the refusal to tax banks' excess profits. The speaker calls into question the opponent's integrity and his position within the party, thereby escalating the intensity of the attack.

The criticism is aimed at the head of the government (the Prime Minister), who stands accused of either failing to provide a sensible answer or merely pretending to understand the question. This is powerful criticism focused on competence, highlighting the government's inability to respond effectively to significant social trends.

The criticism is aimed at the government or the current policy that permits continued mass immigration from third countries. The opposition is political and focuses on the ineffectiveness of the migration policy, directly asking whether it wouldn't be right "to first and foremost stop mass immigration."

The main opponent is the sitting government, especially Interior Minister Lauri Läänemets and the Security Police Board. The criticism is directed at alleged disinformation, administrative incompetence, and law enforcement agencies that interfere in domestic politics. The speaker calls KAPO's credibility into question and strongly implies that the minister should face a vote of no confidence, provided the previous parliamentary order were still in effect.

The opposition is directed against the arguments of e-voting proponents, whom they label as "propagandists." The speaker indirectly defends raising the issue of election anomalies, noting that the decline in trust was noticeable even before EKRE was formed in 2013, thus the criticism is legitimate.

The confrontation is directed at the Minister of Education and Research, who is being criticized for their prioritization and denial of the need for reform. The criticism is both policy- and value-based, accusing the minister of actions that contradict Estonian values (cooperation with dictatorial states). The intensity of the criticism is high, referencing the education system's "greatest crisis."

The main opposition is directed at the bill's initiator/rapporteur, whose priorities in assessing security threats are deemed incorrect. The criticism is political and centers on the fact that the bill under discussion addresses a less significant influencing factor (MP communication/links) at the expense of a greater threat (mass immigration).