By Plenary Sessions: Ando Kiviberg

The rhetorical style is extremely formal, informative, and procedural, focusing on communicating the details of the Constitutional Committee's work to the plenary session. The speaker employs a neutral and objective tone, relying on logical arguments, reading out the precise wording of the draft law and the voting results. Emotional or personal appeals are avoided; instead, the emphasis is placed on consensus and official decisions.

The speaker's style is formal, neutral, and procedural, focusing on the precise conveyance of the committee's discussion. They utilize logical arguments (e.g., awaiting the ODIHR report) and emphasize the importance of transparency. Their personal stance is moderate and rational, steering clear of emotional or aggressive tones.

The style is extremely formal, neutral, and procedural. The address is a detailed overview of the committee meeting, dominated by the presentation of facts, the summarization of colleagues' questions and the minister's answers, and the announcement of procedural decisions. Emotional or personal appeals are absent; the focus is on logical and structured reporting.

The style is formal and respectful (when addressing the director and the minister), but the tone is concerned and urgent, highlighting the critical importance of the future of the Estonian language. A logical appeal is employed to define the conflict requiring resolution between copyright protection and language development.

The style is serious, formal, and argumentative, utilizing strong historical and security-based logical appeals. The tone is urgent and at times combative, especially when describing the actions of the Moscow Patriarchate as "godless" and linking them to the support of conquest, killing, and marauding. Rhetorical questions are used to challenge the opposing side's viewpoints.