By Agendas: Lauri Hussar

The style is formal, analytical, and emphasizes the seriousness and urgency of the topic, in order to ensure clear rules of the game before the next elections. The speaker employs logical arguments (problem-solving, credibility) and also introduces emotional appeals (historical value, avoiding a "comedy" and a "farce"). He quotes the Postimees editorial to support the positive direction of the draft bill.

The speech is extremely formal and neutral, focusing solely on procedural activity (introducing the agenda item and inviting the minister). Emotional or logical appeals are absent.

The style of discourse is extremely formal, neutral, and procedural. Short, clear announcements are used regarding parliamentary procedure (e.g., opening and closing debates, setting deadlines), along with polite address to the rapporteur.

The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, centering on procedural clarity and the "interests of the official record." Rhetorical questions are employed to underscore the limits of the presiding officer's mandate and highlight absurd scenarios (e.g., "demanding with the crack of a whip"), all while preserving an institutional tone.

The speaker's style is very formal and respectful ("Esteemed Chairman of the Session! Honored colleagues!"). The tone is mostly factual and informative, focusing on logical arguments (budget savings, interpretation of the law). He/She uses both an apologetic tone (for exceeding the procedural limits) and a tone expressing sincere satisfaction when colleagues finally grasped the rules.

The rhetorical style is formal, respectful, and analytical, politely addressing the chair of the session and the presenter. The speaker focuses on logical and legal argumentation, demanding the specification of concrete provisions that guarantee the protection of fundamental rights. Emotional or narrative appeals are absent.

The style of discourse is extremely formal, direct, and declarative. Simple and clear language is employed, the purpose of which is to convey specific procedural information (consent to candidacy/application). Emotional or narrative appeals are absent, focusing purely on logical affirmation.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and focused on inquiry, employing rhetorical questions to challenge the claims made by the opposing party. A powerful metaphor, "the Sunday patriarch," is utilized to illustrate the alleged contradiction and lack of credibility in Kirill's activities.

The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and analytical, focusing on logical appeals and the demand for data. Light irony is employed to criticize the debate's excessive focus on Lithuania ("It seems the entire hall is full of Lithuanian finance and banking experts.").

The rhetorical style is polite, formal, and constructive, including strong compliments directed at the Foreign Minister and the ministry ("a sincere compliment for the work you have done"). The address is logical and focuses on posing a question to initiate a discussion on improving inter-institutional cooperation.

The style is retrospective, appreciative, and humorous, making it suitable for a holiday event ("time of austerity"). The speech relies heavily on anecdotes and direct quotes from Santa Claus’s previous appearances to illustrate political observations. The tone is generally positive and instructive, emphasizing that the listeners have been "good students."

The rhetorical style is conciliatory, consensus-seeking, and persuasive, emphasizing the importance of political agreements. It utilizes both emotional appeals (solidarity, sense of responsibility) and logical appeals (specific savings figures and the capacity to continue operations). The address is formal and concludes with a direct call for the draft bill to be supported by all members of the Riigikogu.

The style is initially appreciative ("acknowledging the intention"), but quickly turns critical and authoritative, especially when legal questions are raised. Logical and procedural argumentation is employed, referencing the constitution, and concluding with a strong accusation directed at the drafters of the bill ("a botched job").

The style is formal, explanatory, and moderately persuasive, emphasizing both the logical necessity (fiscal savings) and the ethical appeal (solidarity). The speaker describes the content of the bill and stresses that it is a broad compromise resulting from lengthy negotiations.

The style of address is highly formal and direct, confined solely to a courteous salutation ("Esteemed Presiding Officer!") and the articulation of clear consent.

The rhetorical style is formal and questioning, emphasizing the urgency and necessity of the situation concerning aid to Ukraine. A logical appeal is used to find solutions for overcoming US domestic political obstacles, while maintaining a factual and concerned tone.