By Plenary Sessions: Rene Kokk

The style is formal and respectful, which is appropriate for addressing a candidate for the Supreme Court, but the tone is one of concern and inquiry. The speaker employs rhetorical questions to underscore the gravity of the issue, citing public opinion and specific examples of repeat offenses. The appeal is directed at both logic (Why is this the case?) and emotion (Serious criminals are committing new crimes).

The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and interrogative, making it suitable for a plenary session of parliament. The tone is businesslike and focuses on gathering facts, starting with the polite address: "Thank you, dear Chair! Dear Minister!"

The rhetorical style is critical, demanding, and at times ironic, using strongly emotional language (e.g., "pathetically comical," "unmanageable") to describe the situation surrounding e-elections. At the same time, the minister is required to provide a calm, understandable, and point-by-point logical explanation regarding these political decisions.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, combative, and accusatory, utilizing strong phrases such as "you're simply steamrolling us" and "a truly dire situation." The speaker combines logical argumentation (the cause-and-effect link between road safety and old cars) with an emotional appeal. He/She frequently uses rhetorical questions and demands specific evaluations from the opponent, for example, on a five-point scale.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and confrontational, utilizing sarcasm and *reductio ad absurdum* to attack the minister's arguments ("the more prisoners, the more jobs"). The tone is demanding and accusatory, particularly regarding the minister's conduct (stepping away from their role, scolding others) and the irresponsibility of the Riigikogu board. Emphasis is placed on logical arguments and the presentation of procedural requirements.

The rhetorical style is analytical, systematic, and rigorous, particularly when addressing commission discussions and financial matters. The speaker relies heavily on logical and economic arguments, utilizing data to calculate net costs and value-added tax (VAT). Direct questions are employed to challenge the financial competence of the bill’s opponents.