By Plenary Sessions: Jaak Valge

The rhetorical style is critical, analytical, and academic, emphasizing logical arguments, social research data, and historical context. He criticizes the opponents' terminology ("reactionary," "progressivist") as Marxist and considers the draft bill's explanatory memorandum unconvincing and poorly structured. The speaker attempts to maintain a formal tone, but is sharply confrontational at the same time.

The rhetorical style is direct, challenging, and analytical. The speaker uses rhetorical questions to pressure the opponent and calls into question the adequacy of their political choices. Although the speaker begins politely, the content is sharp and critical, relying on facts and comparisons in the second address as a logical appeal.

The style is formal, data-driven, and persistent, presenting the question directly to the minister following an unsuccessful attempt with the prime minister. The tone is critical and demanding, containing a veiled accusation directed at the prime minister, who either failed to understand the question or feigned ignorance.

The address is formal and respectful, employing standard forms of address for the Deputy Chairman and the rapporteur. The rhetoric is highly logical and data-driven, utilizing statistics (18,000 immigrants versus 2.5 times fewer individuals passing the language exam) to substantiate its position. The tone is one of concern, demanding swift political intervention on the issue of mass immigration.

The style is formal, combative, and skeptical, employing pointed questions and historical references to underscore its positions. The speaker balances logical arguments (statistics, KAPO reports) with powerful accusations (disinformation, lack of administrative competence). He utilizes irony and cynicism to cast doubt on official hypotheses, concluding with the suggestion of a hypothetical motion of no confidence.

Rhetorical style is formal and analytical, focusing on logical questions and data. Statistical evidence (Skytte Institute) is used, and critical questions are posed regarding the arguments of e-voting propagandists. The speaker employs a rhetorical device, temporarily assuming the persona of a coalition member of parliament to emphasize their support for a specific critical viewpoint.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and inquisitive, calling into question the minister's priorities and competence. Logical arguments and factual data (OECD statistics, quotes from the minister) are employed to substantiate the claims made. The tone is urgent, highlighting the crisis in the education system and stressing the unethical nature and expense of foreign visits.

The speaking style is formal, analytical, and interrogative, utilizing historical analogies and rational arguments to challenge the opposing side's viewpoints. He addresses the presenter, emphasizing their Master's degree and rational thinking, in order to pose a question regarding the prioritization of security threats. The tone is critical, yet maintains official courtesy.