By Plenary Sessions: Andre Hanimägi

The style is rational and persuasive, focusing on the logical balance where the benefit of security outweighs the minimal infringement of personal freedoms. The speaker employs rhetorical contrast to criticize opponents for appealing to emotions and to urge listeners to think rationally. The tone is formal, yet includes urgent emphasis on the needs of the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA).

The rhetorical style is analytical and sharply critical, especially regarding the government's inaction and procedural chaos, which is described as "bizarre" and "over the top" confusion. Both logical arguments (legal correctness, proportionality) and emotional pressure (references to unsolved crimes) are employed. Initially, there is noticeable ironic praise concerning the Prime Minister being "on a stand-up roll."

The style is formal, analytical, and procedural, focusing on conveying the legal committee's deliberations and procedural decisions. It employs logical appeals, emphasizing that disagreements between the Riigikogu (Parliament) and the President constitute a normal democratic process that ought to be settled by the Supreme Court. The tone is persuasive and defensive, refuting accusations of ideological control or restrictions on religious freedom.

The speaker's style is formal and respectful, addressing the Chancellor of Justice directly and thanking him/her. The rhetoric is analytical and question-oriented, focusing on the legal aspect of the problem (revenge porn) and the need to find solutions. The tone is serious and concerned regarding the protection of victims.

The rhetorical style is critical and inquiry-based, focusing on the objective assessment of the situation and the establishment of facts. The speaker utilizes authoritative sources (the defense industry association, the prime minister) to support their stance, thereby highlighting the gravity of the government's failure to act. The tone is formal and analytical, as questions are directed to the minister.

The style is formal and analytical, but includes an urgent call to action, particularly concerning the financial ombudsman bill. The address relies on logical arguments, citing the overburdening of the judicial system and low consumer awareness. Finally, direct and figurative language is employed ("we take this bill out of the drawer, wipe the dust off") to mobilize political will.

The speaker's style is formal and analytical, particularly when reporting on the committee's work, but becomes passionate when emphasizing social needs (the deficit in the Health Insurance Fund) and the Riigikogu's obligation to stand up for the people. They use clear metaphors ("a huge, huge hole") and frame the discussion through ideological debate, balancing procedural information with value-based arguments.

The rhetorical style is formal and question-driven, addressing the minister directly. The tone is critical and demanding, highlighting both the negative social impact of the government's decisions and presenting logical evidence (such as the advance payment example from the audit) concerning financial management issues.

The style is predominantly formal and analytical, focusing on logical arguments and highlighting specific issues (e.g., legal vacuum, ethical problems). The text employs both ethical appeals (such as the dignified end of life) and pragmatic ones (like the regional impact of tax policy), and it calls for constructive debate. Humorous introductions are sometimes used as well, for instance, by referencing the repetition of Lauri Laats' name.

The discourse is formal and analytical, often relying on facts, references to legal codes, and statistics. The tone is predominantly critical and demanding, especially when addressing the government, stressing the necessity of assuming political responsibility and resolving situations swiftly. Both logical arguments (bringing into compliance with the constitution) and emotional appeals (money lost by the elderly) are employed.