By Plenary Sessions: Lauri Hussar

The style is formal, analytical, and persuasive, focusing on procedural logic and the necessity of legal reform. The speaker utilizes historical data to support arguments and cites external sources, such as a Postimees editorial, to underscore the positive trajectory of the amendments. The tone is measured, yet it strongly emphasizes the imperative to adopt the legislation during the current session.

The rhetorical style is extremely formal, neutral, and procedural, fitting the role of the session chair. Short, clear, and authoritative sentences are used, aimed at advancing the items on the agenda. Emotional or logical appeals are absent; the emphasis is placed on parliamentary language usage ("esteemed rapporteur," "I close the debate").

The style of the address is formal and analytical, heavily employing rhetorical questions to illustrate the extreme interpretation of the session chairman's authority ("cracking the whip"). The tone is investigative, aimed at obtaining a procedural clarification for the official transcript.

The speaker's style is predominantly formal and procedural, often addressing the Chair of the session. Depending on the topic, the tone is either administrative (when explaining furniture repair), serious and demanding solidarity (when discussing cuts), or pedantic and rule-focused (when interpreting the rules of the information hour). The speaker employs arguments based on facts and legislation, and expresses satisfaction when colleagues finally grasp the rules.

The style of address is formal and respectful, politely addressing the presiding officer and the rapporteur. The emphasis is placed on logical and legal analysis, focusing on the identification of specific provisions to ensure the legality of the draft legislation.

The speaker employs a very concrete, formal, and declarative style, restricting the content to a brief and direct affirmation of their willingness to stand for election. There are no emotional or logical appeals; the statement is purely procedural.

The rhetorical style is analytical, sharp, and provocative, employing rhetorical questions to underscore the absurdity of the opposing side's position ("do you really think it's possible that Kirill is a Sunday patriarch?"). The tone is critical, accusing the opposition of misleading people "very skillfully," while appealing to logic and scriptural principles.

The rhetorical style is formal, logical, and data-driven, focusing on demanding specific numbers and rates. Light irony is used regarding the overabundance of Lithuanian banking experts, but the overall tone is inquisitive and analytical.

The rhetorical style is polite and highly complimentary, addressing the Foreign Minister with sincere appreciation for the work accomplished. The tone is analytical and formal, emphasizing the growing importance of the topic (parliamentary diplomacy) through the use of strong adjectives ("gigantically grown").

The rhetorical style is formal, humorous, and anecdotal, incorporating numerous direct quotes and reminiscences of the past. The tone is light and reflective, centering on the emotional bond and the internal culture of the parliament. The speaker employs irony and self-irony, such as when demonstrating practiced gestures (like pointing with a hand).

The rhetorical style is formal, conciliatory, and persuasive, focusing on emphasizing consensus and a sense of responsibility. The speaker employs both logical arguments (such as financial savings) and value-based appeals (such as solidarity). He calls upon his colleagues to support the decision in order to demonstrate unity.

The rhetorical style is formal and courteous, yet sharply critical, beginning with an acknowledgement but concluding with the accusation of presenting substandard work. The speaker relies on logical and legal arguments, referencing a specific article of the constitution to underscore the proposal's inadmissibility.

The rhetorical style is formal, serious, and pragmatic, focusing on logical arguments and financial necessity. The tone is conciliatory, emphasizing that this is a broad compromise resulting from lengthy negotiations. The speaker repeatedly uses the terms "solidarity" and "cost savings" to justify their position.

The style is very formal and straightforward, using the address "Esteemed Presiding Officer." The message is declarative and focuses on a single procedural statement; emotional or logical appeals are absent.

The style is formal and respectful, addressing the Vice-Speaker of the Riigikogu and the Minister. The tone is concerned and urgent, emphasizing the critical need for assistance, and a direct, solution-seeking question is posed.