By Plenary Sessions: Andre Hanimägi

The rhetorical style is considered, constructive, and rational, emphasizing that any amendment to the constitution must be a rational, not an emotional, decision. The speaker employs formal language and relies on logical and legal arguments, calling for compromises and the balancing of society. The sharpness of the debate is welcomed, but the necessity of being fair and legally sound is underscored.

The rhetorical style is highly formal and procedural, focusing on a detailed account of the bill's history and the legal committee's deliberations. The speaker employs logical arguments and constantly references the committee minutes, maintaining a neutral and explanatory tone. Emotional appeals are not utilized; the emphasis is placed solely on the transparent description of the legislative process.

The rhetorical style is analytical, challenging, and persistent, centering on logical argumentation and the rigorous testing of the opposing party's positions. The speaker repeatedly employs direct questions ("I ask you...") to elicit alternative solutions and highlight the fallacious nature of the opponent's arguments (such as appealing to anecdotal evidence). The tone remains formal and courteous, yet fundamentally adversarial in content.

The rhetorical style is interrogative and procedural, expressing confusion ("I got into a bit of a bind") and concern ("I am worried") about straying from the topic of the debate. Direct questions are employed to verify that the draft bill currently under consideration is indeed the one the committee worked on, emphasizing the logical appeal regarding the substance of the law.

The rhetorical style is extremely formal, informative, and procedural, focusing on the detailed reporting of the legal committee's work and the proposed amendments. The speaker employs logical argumentation and a neutral tone, avoiding emotional appeals. The presentation is structured based on chronological and substantive reporting.