By Plenary Sessions: Yoko Alender

The rhetorical style is formal, neutral, and procedural, typical of a commission rapporteur. The speaker focuses on conveying the substance of facts and discussions, employing logical appeals and referencing specific questions and ministerial assurances. The tone is objective and informative, avoiding emotional judgments.

The speaker's rhetorical style is formal, informative, and procedural, characteristic of a steering committee report delivered to the plenary session. The presentation relies on logical arguments and fact-based explanations, particularly concerning system operation, economic viability, and the objectives of the legislative changes. Emotional appeals are absent; the emphasis is placed on the delivery of structured information.

The style of address is extremely formal and laconic, confining itself to announcing the faction's official position. The chairperson is addressed politely ("Esteemed Chairperson"). This constitutes purely declarative language use, lacking both emotional appeals and substantive justifications.

The style is analytical and fact-based, utilizing statistics (e.g., 63% of sorters) to debunk myths and justify the necessity of the reform. The tone is generally pragmatic and optimistic regarding the reform's success, while simultaneously highlighting the system's deficiencies (such as landfill fires and unclear instructions). The appeals target both financial incentives and tangible environmental benefits.

The rhetorical style is formal, procedural, and measured, focusing on the logical reporting of the commission's work and timeline. The tone is optimistic and appreciative, emphasizing the positive outcome of cooperation and goodwill in resolving specific issues. Straightforward and technical terminology is used.

The style is formal and procedural during the commission reports, where the dates and decisions of the proceedings are listed. During the debate, the style shifts to become argumentative and analytical, relying on facts and research. Sharp ideological criticism is directed at opponents, accusing them of "muddying the waters," but light humor is also incorporated (the example of watching a loud TV).

The style of discourse is formal, analytical, and defensive, focusing on establishing clarity and certainty within policy domains. Logical arguments and data (percentages, financial indicators) are employed to rebut counterarguments. Although the style is predominantly matter-of-fact, sharper language is also used when addressing criticism, referring to certain claims circulated by the opposition as "quite absurd statements."

The style is formal and respectful, encompassing both technical argumentation (such as the impact assessment process) and value-based appeals (nature as the paramount value). One presenter is concise and emphasizes collaboration, while the other is more detailed and employs sharp moral condemnation, specifically denouncing the drawing of parallels with the 1940s within the Riigikogu chamber.

The rhetorical style is confident, optimistic, and data-driven, emphasizing the positive nature of achievements ("ultra-positive"). The speaker begins by refuting the opponents' false claims, but then proceeds to present logical arguments and specific costs (e.g., 13 euros per year). The tone is formal and focuses on facts rather than emotional appeals.

The rhetorical style is analytical and persuasive, focusing on logical arguments and cost-benefit comparisons. The tone is formal, but it includes sharp criticism directed at opponents, calling the actions of Isamaa "highly significant." The speaker emphasizes national importance and thanks those who contributed to the process, starting the speech with a request to speak without interruptions.

The tone is formal (owing to the commission's report) but highly positive and personally content, describing the atmosphere within the commission as "very positive, not to say elated." The speaker uses a brief personal anecdote about their 12-year-long dream to add emotional weight to the procedural briefing and underscore the significance of the accomplishment.

The rhetorical style is balanced, ambitious, and optimistic, emphasizing an evidence-based approach and a long-term perspective. Figurative expressions and old folk wisdom are employed, such as ("Don't spit into the old well"), and historical events are referenced (the energy crisis, Russia's war of aggression). The text concludes with a philosophical quote (Karl Popper) regarding the obligation of optimism.

The rhetorical style is formal and respectful, commencing with an expression of gratitude to the Minister for the presentation and their good work. The tone is professional and factual, and the questions posed are directed towards clarifying specific objectives and the ministry's operational activities. Logical arguments are employed, emphasizing the fact that clean energy is the foundation of new industry.

The rhetorical style is analytical, optimistic, and at times forceful, relying heavily on data and economic arguments. It employs both logical appeals and a value-based framework, linking energy to freedom and health. The speech is formal and includes quotes from both colleagues and industry experts.