By Plenary Sessions: Mario Kadastik

The rhetorical style is rational, explanatory, and at times defensive, focusing on refuting misstatements and open questions presented during the discussion. Formal language is employed, and emphasis is placed on logical and fact-based arguments, while paying close attention to procedural accuracy.

The rhetorical style is optimistic, substantive, and persuasive, relying on logical arguments, as well as technological and economic facts. The speaker uses formal language but adds a personal touch, referencing their role in initiating the process more than ten years ago. They strongly urge support for the draft bill in order to realize Estonia's potential.

The rhetorical style is formal, neutral, and informative, characteristic of a rapporteur for the lead committee. The address is logically structured, focusing on facts, dates, and procedural steps, while avoiding emotional or personal appeals. The tone is businesslike and goal-oriented, concentrating on providing a detailed description of the second reading process.

The rhetorical style is extremely formal, neutral, and informative, characteristic of a committee rapporteur. A logical approach is employed, focusing on facts, dates, and procedural decisions (e.g., 20 amendments, 8 amendments), while strictly avoiding emotional or personal viewpoints.

The rhetorical style is critical, skeptical, and rational, focusing on emphasizing the irrationality and unreality of the opposing side's arguments. Strong comparisons (e.g., the totalitarian regime of China) are used to characterize unacceptable control mechanisms.