By Plenary Sessions: Diana Ingerainen

The rhetorical style is balanced, combining emotional appeals (home, security, the fear of an empty stomach) with strong logical and economic argumentation. The speech is formal and analytical, progressing from a personal introduction to political conclusions. The style is persuasive, stressing that simple solutions to complex problems are rarely the right ones.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and highly empathetic, focusing on themes of compassion and human dignity. The speaker employs logical arguments (budget and investment figures) along with a moral appeal, stressing that no one should have to endure avoidable suffering or be left isolated. The tone is one of concern, yet constructive, urging responsible and judicious action.

Insufficient data

The style of discourse is formal, procedural, and analytical, focusing on the reporting of the commission's work results, voting outcomes, and expert input. The arguments are primarily logical and data-driven, emphasizing the analyses and the absence of guarantees. The tone remains neutral, even when a motion for rejection is presented.

The style of the speech is formal and respectful, using direct addresses to the Speaker of the Riigikogu and the Minister. The rhetoric is logical and centers on a procedural matter (the temporal control of the metrics), stressing the necessity of avoiding overly rigid regulation.

The style of discourse is formal, neutral, and strictly procedural. The focus is on conveying facts (dates, participants, decisions), and emotional or rhetorical appeals are absent. Responses are short and specific; for instance, when asked whether something had been discussed, he simply answered in the negative.

The speaking style is formal, procedural, and analytical, focusing on the communication of the commission's decisions and deliberations. The presenter utilizes logical argumentation and fact-based information (dates, names, consensus decisions), answering questions directly and acknowledging those who pose them. The tone is neutral and objective, avoiding emotional or personal appeals.

The style is formal, serious, and persuasive, highlighting the urgency of the situation and the need for immediate action. The speaker utilizes both logical arguments (scarcity of resources, compromises) and a values-based appeal (guaranteeing Estonia's security and stability). The overall tone remains constructive, urging people not to stand still.

The style is formal and centered on specific questions, addressing the presiding officer and the minister politely. The speaker employs a logical approach, combining agreement with a colleague alongside a direct political inquiry concerning the bill's methodology.

The tone is professional, constructive, and optimistic, starting with an expression of gratitude for the preparation of the draft. The appeal is primarily logical and expert, highlighting the stages of the process and the practical value of the draft legislation. The speaker also employs emotional references, describing the work of a doctor as an art and emphasizing the relief of suffering.

The rhetorical style is highly formal, neutral, and fact-based, focusing on the precise transmission of Riigikogu procedures. The speaker utilizes a logical structure to present the committee's decisions and voting results without emotional appeals. The tone is objective and businesslike.

The style of the speech is formal, neutral, and strictly procedural, focusing on the delivery of facts. Emotional or rhetorical appeals are absent; the emphasis is on the logical and precise presentation of details (e.g., committee decisions). The speaker uses official language, addressing the Chairman of the Riigikogu and colleagues.

The rhetorical style is formal, procedural, and analytical, focusing on communicating the committee’s work and decisions in the role of the representative of the leading committee. The speaker relies on logical arguments and data, repeatedly emphasizing which aspects (e.g., health or social impact) the bill’s proponents have failed to analyze. The tone is cautious and measured.

The address is brief, formal, and dutiful, beginning with a simple greeting ("Greetings!"). The tone is solemn and focuses on the administration of the oath of office, which indicates institutional respect and the seriousness of the duties.