By Months: Mario Kadastik

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and procedural, focusing on accurately recounting the discussion held by the Economic Affairs Committee. The speaker employs logical arguments and fact-based reporting, steering clear of emotional appeals. This includes a brief but courteous reference to the question posed by the Reform Party: ("That was a very Reform Party-like question from Rain, very good.")

The style is formal, analytical, and procedural, as the speaker often acts as a commission rapporteur, citing the positions held by ministries and funds. The speaker relies heavily on logical arguments and data, but also employs sharp criticism, referring to the opponent's draft bill as a "propaganda topic" and a "band-aid bill." He/She poses numerous questions to challenge the opposing side's claims and underlying assumptions.

The style is predominantly logical, explanatory, and data-driven, aimed at refuting objections and clarifying facts. It employs figurative comparisons (hair cutting, taxi meter) to simplify complex topics, but the overall tone remains formal and businesslike. It conveys a sense of speed and urgency regarding the adoption of the law, necessary to avoid penalties that have accumulated at the expense of education and security.

Highly confrontational and self-assured, especially in debates with Urmas Reinsalu and Rain Epler. This person frequently employs sarcasm and levels direct accusations against opponents, charging them with lying, speaking "nonsense," and spreading "mental inflation." The style is data-driven, relying on detailed calculations and technical explanations, but it turns emotional and personal when the accuracy of the facts is called into question.

The speaker employs a highly analytical and often confrontational rhetorical style, particularly when correcting factual inaccuracies. He uses sharp phrases such as "total populism" and "intentional falsehood." He relies almost exclusively on logical arguments and data, utilizing simple analogies (e.g., driving with an open car window, taking a step up the stairs) to clarify complex physical phenomena. While he is open to informal discussion, his overall tone remains formal and precise, except when he accuses opponents of fearmongering rooted in ignorance.

The speaker's style is predominantly analytical and fact-based, often relying on data and official sources (the head of Enefit Power, an Elering memo). They are direct and at times confrontational in disputes, particularly when the economic benefits of renewable energy or the price of fossil fuels are challenged. They use strong expressions to condemn personal attacks and criticize the opposing side's claims as "hot air" or "a senseless waste of money."

The rhetorical style is formal, neutral, and procedural, focusing on the accurate conveyance of the Economic Affairs Committee's discussions and decisions to the Riigikogu. The speaker employs logical argumentation to clarify complex technical and legal details, such as the ownership structure of the direct line and its cost-effectiveness. The tone is explanatory and informative, avoiding emotional or personal appeals.