By Agendas: Yoko Alender

The rhetorical style is formal, neutral, and procedural, characteristic of a commission rapporteur. The focus is on a logical and fact-based summary of the commission's deliberations, the questions raised, and the consensus decisions reached. Emotional appeals are absent; the emphasis is placed on the transparent description of the procedure.

The rhetorical style is formal, courteous, and procedural, addressing both the presiding officer and the minister with respect. The speech is logical and focuses on verifying facts and obtaining official confirmation, avoiding emotional or aggressive appeals.

The rhetorical style is neutral, formal, and informative, as this is the leading committee’s report on the results of the discussion. The presentation is logic-driven and highly detailed, explaining the content of the draft bill, its economic rationale, and the functioning of the system (e.g., the role of producer responsibility organizations as a form of insurance). Emotional appeals are not utilized, with the exception of a brief mention regarding the nuisance caused by electronic cigarettes.

The speaker's style is very formal and respectful, using the standard address, "Thank you, esteemed Chairman!" The rhetoric is extremely brief and direct, limited to clearly expressing the faction's opposition without providing substantive justifications.

The rhetorical style is predominantly analytical, logical, and data-driven, utilizing statistics to debunk myths and justify policy. The tone is constructive and optimistic regarding the reform, while simultaneously emphasizing the necessity of shifting people's mindset from linear to circular. Formal language is employed, focusing on political mechanisms, while also presenting personal experiences related to sorting.

The speaker adopts a formal, procedural, and highly optimistic style, highlighting successful collaboration and the achievement of consensus ("a very good example"). The emphasis is placed on a logical and factual presentation, detailing the commission's workflow and timeline.

The style is predominantly factual, informative, and detailed, particularly when presenting the Environment Committee's discussion, drawing on expert opinions and facts. The argumentation is logical, emphasizing the economic and security benefits of renewable energy. Criticism directed at the opposition is sharp, accusing the bill's initiators of ideological opposition and insincerity, and also employs light humor (watching a loud TV in Sopi-Tootsi).

The rhetorical style is formal, substantive, and procedure-centric, focusing on explaining the background of the draft legislation and the procedural steps taken. The speaker relies on logical arguments and facts, referencing specific dates, committee meetings, and the position of the Chancellor of Justice. Emotional or personal appeals are absent; the emphasis is solely on conveying information.

The rhetorical style is analytical, constructive, and highly detailed, focusing on facts and political substance. Logical arguments are employed to refute objections, labeling the allowance of state-subsidized energy as "absurd claims" and dismissing the narrative of rampant nature conservation as untrue. Finally, an emotional appeal is used by invoking the future and ensuring a good living environment for children.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and measured, balancing logical arguments (references to the Constitution, the National Audit Office report) with a value-based emphasis on the importance of nature. The speaker uses procedural and historical references in the context of lawmaking, but concludes with a sharp, morally grounded condemnation of drawing parallels with the 1940s.

The rhetorical style is moderate and conciliatory, focusing on practical legislation and emphasizing cooperation. The speaker uses simple and direct language, avoiding deep, substantive environmental discourse, but includes an emotional appeal on the topic of protecting the national animal.

The rhetorical style is confident and optimistic, emphasizing the positive nature of the achievements ("a super-positive step") and the paramount importance of ensuring energy security. The speaker uses logical arguments and data to justify the necessity of the bill, while initially refuting the false claims presented by opponents. The tone is formal and focuses on a detailed explanation of the policy.

The rhetorical style is authoritative, serious, and persuasive, beginning with a request to speak without interruptions. The address combines logical arguments (cost-benefit analysis) with strong appeals to national security and historical significance (Energy Independence Day). The speaker also adopts an appreciative tone, thanking those who contributed to the process, but takes a pointedly critical stance toward opponents.

The rhetorical style is highly positive, optimistic, and even "exalted," reflecting personal satisfaction over the completion of a long process. The speaker employs personal recollection and an emotional connection to the subject matter, linking it with a formal political justification concerning the nation's competitiveness and health. The presentation itself is informative, focusing on summarizing the committee's discussion.

The rhetorical style is formal, balanced, and ambitious, utilizing both folk wisdom ("Ära sülita vanasse kaevu" – Don't spit into the old well) and philosophical quotes (Karl Popper) to support the arguments. The tone is optimistic and responsible, emphasizing the need to act step-by-step, yet resolutely, to ensure a clean living environment and well-being.

The rhetorical style is formal, polite, and constructive, starting with an acknowledgment of the minister ("thank you for the presentation and for the good work!"). The argumentation is logical and fact-based, emphasizing the connections (correlation) between energy, productivity, and well-being.

The rhetorical style is analytical, optimistic, and compelling, emphasizing the importance of data and economic benefit. Both logical appeals (such as report findings) and strong value-based connections are utilized, linking energy and productivity with the ultimate value for Estonians—freedom. The speaker also poses rhetorical questions and quotes renowned experts to support their positions.