By Plenary Sessions: Andre Hanimägi

The rhetorical style is questioning and analytical, employing a comparison (a home loan versus national debt) to highlight the sheer scale of the topic. The speaker introduces a common, yet potentially naive objection ("what if we have a large debt?"), specifically to elicit an official, expert-backed response.

The style is analytical and interrogative, emphasizing logical consistency and procedural errors. It acknowledges the emotional nature of the land tax issue but focuses on explaining the political consequences and historical omissions. The address is formal ("Dear Vice-Chairman! Dear Minister!").

The style is formal and respectful, directly addressing the presenter with the phrases "Dear Manager! Dear Presenter!". The tone is analytical and inquisitive, focusing on finding solutions and setting priorities in the fields of both infrastructure and legislation. The speaker uses logical argumentation, presenting choices (Rail Baltic vs. the acceptance of geography) and examining the efficiency of the state's activities.

The rhetorical style is highly formal, procedural, and informative, focusing on the accurate and neutral conveyance of the content of the Social Affairs Committee session. The discourse is logical and fact-based, including direct quotations and references to the responses provided by the minister and officials. Emotional appeals are absent, and emphasis is placed on consensus-based procedural decisions.

The address is serious and concerned, highlighting the urgent necessity of resolving social and legal injustice. It describes a situation where the defense of rights is rendered "quite absurd" due to mandatory state fees. The speaker employs both logical arguments (the high cost of litigation) and emotional appeals (faith in the rule of law, the risk of social exclusion). The overall style is formal and respectful, directed toward the presiding officer and colleagues.

The style is analytical and data-driven, utilizing statistics and historical facts to defend e-voting. The tone is moderately assertive, particularly when criticizing the political motives of opponents and accusing them of polarizing society. The speaker emphasizes logical argumentation, highlighting the complete lack of evidence of electoral fraud throughout the 20-year history.

The rhetorical style is confrontational, forceful, and emotionally charged, emphasizing the security threat. The speaker uses authoritative quotes to establish the gravity of the danger. The address concludes with a direct rhetorical question aimed at casting doubt on the motives and understanding of the situation held by the Riigikogu members supporting the opposing side.