By Plenary Sessions: Annely Akkermann

The speaking style is didactic and explanatory, often employing instructive analogies (e.g., giving lectures to primary school students, the metaphor of dividing a cake). It relies heavily on facts and figures but also incorporates historical references (Solon) and practical examples. The style is calm and argumentative rather than emotional, focusing on logical persuasion.

Utilizes a formal, fact-based, and explanatory style, focusing on the precise conveyance of technical details. The tone is calm and professional, and responses are brief and specific. It prefers logical arguments over emotional ones, utilizing rhetorical techniques minimally.

The speaker uses a polite and formal tone, respectfully addressing both the chairman and the minister. The question is posed clearly and specifically, without the use of emotional or rhetorical devices.

It employs a formal, structured, and fact-based approach. The tone is calm and analytical, focusing on the objective description of the problem and the search for solutions. It relies on specific examples and summaries of committee discussions, avoiding emotional rhetoric.

The speaker employs a series of questions as a rhetorical device, establishing a thought-provoking and critical tone. The style is polite yet firm, utilizing personal experience ("I have been in the Riigikogu for quite a long time already") to build authority, and concluding with provocative questions about the future.

The text employs an official, fact-based style, focusing on numerical data and procedural explanations. The second discourse is explanatory and instructive, utilizing a concrete example to demonstrate the effect of the tax hump. The style is neutral and information-oriented.

Adopts a formal, official tone when describing parliamentary procedure, but switches to a more emotional approach regarding the war in Ukraine. It combines a fact-based presentation with personal conviction, utilizing religious context to strengthen the political message.