By Plenary Sessions: Andre Hanimägi

The rhetorical style is forceful and persuasive, combining legal clarity with emotional appeals, especially when defending victims of financial fraud ("coffin money"). The speaker frequently employs emphasis and repetition (e.g., the magnitude of the damages) and is blunt and accusatory regarding critical issues (the shutting down of cameras). He attempts to alleviate fears and clarify the true intent of the proposed legislation, drawing a distinction between the institution and faith.

The style is formal and analytical, emphasizing pragmatism and practicality and aiming to defuse emotional responses. The speaker uses a set of questions to draw attention to procedural shortcomings and demand greater public transparency and clarity. The tone is critical, but not attacking, focusing on the search for better solutions.

The rhetorical style is twofold: in socio-political issues, it is passionate and critical, accusing opponents of "perverse politics" and hypocrisy. However, as a rapporteur for the Legal Committee, the style is very formal, cautious, and procedural, focusing on legal definitions, committee protocols, and emphasizing consensus. The appeals are primarily logical, relying on both statistics and legal arguments.

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and confrontational, posing direct questions to the prime minister regarding accountability and inequality. Logical appeals are employed, stressing that the prime minister must serve as the prime minister for all of Estonia, and the opposing party's actions are branded a "rating crisis."

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and urgent, employing strong language such as "screw-up" and "political hot air." The speaker uses logical arguments (case law, system efficiency) to counter the irrational "phobia" regarding the surveillance society. The overall tone is accusatory, emphasizing the time wasted and the danger created by the government.

The rhetorical style is analytical, persuasive, and persistent, emphasizing the logic and simplicity of the draft bill ("If something is done poorly, do it again"). The speaker employs logical arguments to justify the necessity of the legal amendment and is critical of the inaction displayed by the government and the coalition, even utilizing sarcasm regarding the political ping-pong games. The overall tone is businesslike, yet it conveys an urgent need for change.

The rhetorical style is urgent and critical, emphasizing the seriousness of the problem and its impact on the future of young people. The speaker uses logical arguments, backed by extensive statistics, but also includes an emotional appeal: that housing should not be an unattainable luxury, but a fundamental right. He addresses both the minister and the young people listening from the balcony directly, while maintaining a formal and analytical tone.

The style is formal, but the tone is critical and demanding, particularly regarding the government's indecisiveness. Figurative expressions like "pingpong" and "the notorious brake" are used to emphasize political stalling. The focus is on logical argumentation and demanding concrete decisions, considering the request for additional analyses to be a delay tactic.