By Agendas: Alar Laneman

The rhetorical style is formal, substantive, and procedural, focusing on conveying the content of the draft bill and the procedural flow to the Riigikogu. The speech is logical and neutral, relying on facts and the consensus decisions of institutions (the National Defence Committee). Emotional appeals are absent; the emphasis is placed on informative presentation.

The style is serious, pragmatic, and contextual, utilizing a historical perspective to emphasize the primacy of warfighting capability over administrative correctness. It presents its position supportively, but concludes with a direct and strategic question.

The rhetorical style is formal and direct, respectfully addressing the presiding officer ("Esteemed Chair"). The speaker employs an interrogative approach and uses rhetorical questions to demand clarification regarding the nature of the event that took place in Parliament and its official definition.

The speech is serious and urgent in tone, emphasizing that "special times require special decisions," as well as courage. A balanced mix of logical arguments (the ineffectiveness of the convention, responsible usage) and an emotional appeal is used to demonstrate the seriousness of the will to defend. Simple but impactful metaphors are employed, such as: "The gun is not guilty; the one who pulls the trigger is guilty."

The rhetorical style is courteous and appreciative, beginning with praise for the minister's calm and dignified manner of response. A philosophical analogy ("communicating vessels") is employed, and a practical yet sensitive question is posed regarding how to prevent political debates from failing. The tone is formal, focusing on the quality of the process rather than relying on emotional appeals.

The style is persuasive and authoritative, combining logical argumentation (state competence) with philosophical appeals (the triumph over evil in the world). Historical anecdotes and analogies are employed (community work, the exemplary family) to clarify positions and criticize the tactic of intimidating opponents. When responding to criticism, the tone is more defensive, but it calls for the use of a judicious approach.

The style of speech is highly formal and procedural, concentrating on the delivery of facts and the commission's decisions. The tone is neutral and authoritative, appropriate for a representative of the leading commission. When responding to inquiries, the speaker is cautious, immediately stressing the limits of their authority and declining to answer questions that necessitate a broad perspective.

The speech is highly formal, informative, and procedural, focusing on the neutral presentation of the bill's content and the procedural process. The tone is professional and matter-of-fact, avoiding emotional appeals. Logical argumentation is employed, referencing the operation's objectives and the consensus decisions reached by the committees.

The style is formal and respectful (when addressing the session chair and the minister), but the content is critical and concerned. The speaker employs logical argumentation, stressing the need for cooperation and providing examples (Nursipalu, Pärnu) of regional aspects being disregarded. The tone is more questioning and solution-oriented rather than aggressive.

The style is formal and respectful, beginning with praise for the structure and thoroughness of the Minister of the Interior's work. This is followed by a proposal, presented in a recommendatory key but delivered with urgency, which stresses a logical argument: if an activity is documented, then action will be taken. A tone of concern is employed, referencing an imbalance in national defense preparedness.

The rhetorical style is formal, respectful, and appreciative, addressing the Minister with thanks and praise for the presentation. An analytical approach is employed, assessing the plan's integrity and significance. Finally, a question is posed regarding the concerns circulating in the media, seeking political clarification.

The style is serious and cautionary, emphasizing the criticality of the topic by directly referencing "the conditions of war, specifically hybrid war." Both a logical and emotional appeal are utilized, employing the metaphor of a "crumbling foundation" and raising questions regarding the impact on the will to defend. The address is formal, directed toward the honorable session chairman and the presenter.

The rhetorical style is formal and critical, utilizing polite expressions ("respected chair of the session") to present pointed questions. Indirect accusations and rhetorical questions are employed to cast doubt on the minister's motives and sincerity. The style incorporates both personal references (the minister's special relationship with the Russian language) and political arguments (neglect of the Estonian language and culture).

The rhetorical style is formal and inquisitive, respectfully addressing the session chair and the presenter. The focus is placed on logical appeal, stressing caution and inquiring about the planning process in order to avoid undesirable social consequences. The tone is concerned, yet constructive.

The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and concerned, repeatedly employing rhetorical questions to challenge the minister's stance. The appeals are a blend of logical arguments (the instrumental value of the promise) and moral pressure (a negative legacy for future generations). The minister's attitude is described as "a little too unconcerned."

The rhetorical style is critical and inquisitive, concentrating on logical arguments and challenging the persuasiveness of the justifications presented. A pointed analogy is employed (PPA as a massage parlor) to underscore the inherent unfairness in the government's concept of "benefits." The overall tone is formal and detail-focused.

The speaker's style is sharp, critical, and at times emotional, describing the situation as "sad and comical simultaneously." They employ strong rhetorical questions and direct addresses ("darlings," "dear colleagues") to highlight the illogicality of the opposing side's arguments. Logical arguments (state responsibility, quality control) are interwoven with moral and social appeals (trust is the glue that holds society together).

The rhetorical style is formal and respectful ("Dear Minister!"), yet critical and questioning in content, focusing on the shortcomings of the policy. The speaker employs logical argumentation, connecting the subject of elite sports with broader national values such as the will to defend and national pride.

The rhetorical style is urgent and alarming, focusing on the existential threat and the immediate need for action. A vivid and memorable example is used to illustrate misplaced priorities: a family installing solar panels while an axe-wielding villain stands right outside the gate. The language is formal but incorporates vernacular expressions to emphasize the necessity of redirecting resources (e.g., "the wind turbine and solar panel guys should take a break").

The rhetorical style is pressing, serious, and highly logical, focusing on practical deficiencies and the immediate danger ("at the door"). Logical arguments and analogies (such as changing drivers while traveling 120 km/h) are employed to clarify governance issues. The speaker highlights Estonia's past successes (e-governance, mandatory military service, aid to Ukraine) to inspire colleagues towards new bold moves in the security sector.

The rhetorical style is formal, factual, and urgent, emphasizing the significance of the topic and its media coverage. The speaker relies heavily on logical arguments and external information to construct a one-sided narrative of the threat. The tone is analytical, focusing on the strategic essence of defense planning and emphasizing specific timeframes (2–3 years).

The style is formal and respectful, utilizing addresses such as "Esteemed Chair of the Session" and "Dear colleagues." The tone is slightly conciliatory, describing the Riigikogu's efforts as "laudable," but concludes with a direct and intense plea for support for its specific proposal.

The rhetorical style is formal, yet sharply critical and direct in its content, labeling the response "bad." Logical argumentation is employed, highlighting the substantive inconsistency and demanding clarification regarding the procedural criteria.