By Plenary Sessions: Ando Kiviberg

The rhetorical style is substantive, formal, and procedural, utilizing polite forms of address ("esteemed chairman"). The speaker presents their views logically, emphasizing procedural correctness and directing principled criticism toward ideological pressure. The tone is analytical rather than emotional.

The style is formal, procedural, and explanatory, focusing on facilitating the committee's discussion and answering questions. The tone is measured and rather defensive, particularly regarding the reliability of e-voting. It appeals to logic and facts, emphasizing the principles of Estonia as a state governed by the rule of law and the constitutional right of citizens to seek judicial recourse.

The style is formal, procedural, and fact-based, focusing on the neutral presentation of the committee's discussion. It employs logical appeals, relying on legislation, Supreme Court positions, and data provided by the electoral service. When addressing criticism, the tone is serious and protective of the institutions, yet it also permits a brief personal remark concerning the convenience of e-voting.

The style is initially optimistic and solution-focused, but turns sharp and combative when criticizing the opposition. Both logical arguments (economic expediency, the cost of demolition) and strong emotional accusations (political jealousy, cynical calculation, disgust towards scare tactics) are employed. The speaker uses direct address and speaks to the presiding officer, colleagues, and those watching the broadcast.

The rhetorical style is formal ("Mr. Chairman! Esteemed Minister!"), but it incorporates sharp criticism, describing the debate as occasionally furious and the government's actions as ill-considered. The speaker employs a question format to demand that the minister inform his colleagues about alternative solutions, stressing the need for logical justification.