By Agendas: Meelis Kiili

The rhetorical style is highly formal, factual, and procedural, focusing on the neutral presentation of the work of the National Defence Committee and the background of the draft legislation. The discourse is logic-based, including specific dates, resolution numbers, and the names of officials, while strictly avoiding emotional appeals.

The rhetorical style is serious, urgent, and directly confrontational, addressing the arguments of critics. It employs both emotional appeals (referencing the brutal enemy in Ukraine and cruel weaponry) and logical argumentation (Estonia has neither the time nor the territory to cede). The speech is formal and relies on historical wisdom (Sun Zi) to underscore the strategic objective.

The rhetorical style is analytical, formal, and forceful, focusing on the logical justification and necessity of the bill. The speaker employs appeals to logic, first defining the concept of threat in order to justify the adoption of the legislative amendments.

The address maintains a formal and procedural tone, concentrating on a detailed report of the National Defence Committee's work and clarifying the procedural steps involved. Logical arguments are employed, referencing specific dates and participants. However, it simultaneously stresses the urgent necessity for the law's swift enactment, citing critical security considerations.

The style is formal and appropriate for a sitting of the Riigikogu. One speaker is technical and clarifying, emphasizing speed and justice. The second speaker is more critical and employs a philosophical appeal, quoting Endel Lippmaa to underscore the existence of long-term consequences. The tone is generally businesslike, but in the case of Speaker B, it is also systematically condemnatory.

The style is extremely formal, neutral, and procedural, typical of a commission rapporteur. The discourse focuses on facts, describing the course of proceedings, and communicating consensus decisions. Emotional or persuasive appeals are absent; the emphasis is placed on logical and official language usage.

The rhetorical style is extremely formal, neutral, and procedural, focusing on the reporting of the executive committee's decisions and the course of the proceedings. The discourse is logical and fact-based, providing a detailed overview of the dates of the sessions and the consensus decisions reached. Emotional appeals are entirely absent; the emphasis is placed solely on adherence to legislative procedure.

The rhetorical style is highly formal, neutral, and procedural, making it suitable for the role of the committee rapporteur. The emphasis is placed on logical arguments, facts, and the conveyance of procedural decisions, strictly avoiding emotional appeals. The address is structured chronologically, detailing the committee sessions and the substance of the draft legislation.

The rhetorical style is formal, respectful, and constructive, beginning with an acknowledgment of the minister's presentation ("thank you for the substantive report!"). The address is structured as a question, focusing on analytical comparison and clarifying the level of strategic ambition.

The rhetorical style is professional, methodical, and appreciative, offering thanks to the National Defence Committee, the Defence League, the Ministry of Defence, and Minister Hanno Pevkur. The speech is logical, focusing on describing the process and seeking solutions while carefully avoiding emotional appeals. Formal language is employed throughout, stressing that the work was "professional and very methodical."

The rhetorical style is formal, respectful, and inquisitive, politely addressing both the chairperson and the presenter. The address is logical and focuses on a specific procedural ambiguity, avoiding emotional or aggressive elements.

The rhetorical style is formal, detailed, and procedural, focusing on the systematic reporting of the commission's work. While the tone is predominantly logical and fact-based, the speaker notes that the procedure also involved passion, yet the final outcome was effective and consensual work. He/She uses appreciative language, thanking all contributors and emphasizing the systematic nature of the process.

The rhetorical style is formal and respectful, acknowledging the speaker's observations and addressing them personally ("Dear Presenter!"). Logical argumentation and strategic paraphrasing (Sun Tzu) are employed to emphasize the necessity of conceptual clarity and a holistic approach.

The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, beginning with concurrence regarding the presenter's viewpoints. The tone quickly becomes serious and urgent, posing a direct question about mitigating security risks. The appeal is logical and grounded in the reality of the geopolitical threat.

The address is formal and respectful, commencing with salutations to the Minister and the Presiding Officer, and recognizing the Minister's "great and serious work." The style is logical, centering on a specific procedural issue—namely, the risk of abuse concerning the support measure—and concludes by posing a direct question about the proposed resolution.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and constructive, beginning with praise for the presenter ("a very substantive address!"). The speech is logically structured, first defining the threat (the opponent's capabilities) and subsequently posing a strategic question regarding the solution (diplomatic action involving the BRIC nations). The tone is advisory and geared toward policy improvement.