By Agendas: Eero Merilind

The style is highly formal and respectful, addressing both the chair of the session and the minister. The rhetoric is question-based and focuses on obtaining specific information, while remaining brief and businesslike.

The rhetorical style is formal, optimistic, and persuasive, balancing emotional appeals (emphasizing care and dignity) with logical arguments. The frequently repeated phrase "investment, not cost" and rhetorical questions are used repeatedly to emphasize the human-centric nature of the policy. The speaker uses statistics and concrete examples (e.g., Hiiumaa and Võrumaa) to bring the numbers to life.

The speaker's style is formal, respectful, and straightforward, officially addressing the Chairman of the Riigikogu and the Minister. The rhetoric is logical and focuses on clarifying a specific procedural question, avoiding emotional appeals.

The speaker's style is formal, procedural, and strongly defensive, repeatedly employing the phrase "I remind you once again" in response to recurring questions. The arguments presented are almost exclusively logical and legal, citing statutes and legal opinions to rebut objections. The tone remains calm yet resolute, focusing squarely on the facts and the progression of the procedure.

The style is formal, procedural, and explanatory, centering on summaries of the commission's work and procedural decisions. The speaker relies on logical arguments and facts, citing ministry explanations and consensus decisions, while maintaining a neutral tone. He employs subtle humor, opening the address with "Dear comrades insomniacs."

The rhetorical style is formal and direct, utilizing questions to challenge the presenter's viewpoints and understanding. The tone is critical and skeptical, particularly when implying the presenter has an inaccurate grasp of the essence of the topic. The appeals tend to be logical and focused on definitions.

The style of the address is optimistic and persuasive, centered on logical arguments presented in a structured manner through three positive points. The tone is formal and neutral, emphasizing the economic and logistical advantages of the legislative change. Emotional appeals are absent, with the focus placed entirely on factual claims and enhancing system efficiency.

The rhetorical style is formal, neutral, and procedural, serving the purpose of presenting an overview of the Social Committee's work. The discourse is logical and fact-based, relying directly on the opinions of consulted parties and procedural decisions adopted by consensus. Emotional or persuasive appeals are entirely absent.

The style of discourse is extremely formal, objective, and procedural, focusing on a brief overview of the proceedings of the social committee. The presentation is fact-based and neutral, avoiding emotional appeals. The tone is concise and matter-of-fact.

The style is predominantly formal and procedural, centered on introducing the deliberations and decisions of the Social Affairs Committee. The speaker employs logical appeals, detailing the substance of the legislative amendments and the phases of their enactment. On contentious matters (such as pedophilia), the speaker clearly differentiates between the committee's legal stance and their own personal, morally grounded viewpoint.

The speaker adopts a positive and constructive style, expressing satisfaction with the legislative amendment. The rhetoric remains formal, focusing directly on posing the question and demanding a precise legal clarification.

The rhetorical style is highly formal, informative, and procedural, characteristic of a steering committee report. Emotional appeals are entirely absent; the focus is placed on logical argumentation, the presentation of facts, and the communication of consensus-based decisions. The language is specific and concentrates on summarizing the substance and procedure of the draft legislation.

The style is formal and direct, addressing the candidate politely ("Dear Prime Ministerial Candidate!"). The speaker employs a logical and inquiry-based approach, presenting an issue that is grounded in external authority and media coverage.

The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and interrogative, respectfully addressing the Chancellor of Justice ("Dear Chancellor of Justice!"). The speaker focuses on logical explanation, presenting two specific policy alternatives (exemption versus compensation) without resorting to emotional arguments.

The rhetorical style is polite, formal, and fact-focused. The speaker starts by thanking the Prime Minister for the explanations ("thank you for the extensive explanations!"), which sets a conciliatory tone, but the objective is strictly logical clarification.

The rhetorical style is formal, serious, and evidence-based, utilizing numerous logical appeals and statistical data concerning the prevalence of obesity. The speaker’s tone is primarily explanatory and educational, stressing the scope of the issue and its medical consequences. Instead of emotional appeals, the focus remains on facts and the long-term benefits for public health.

The rhetorical style is formal, polite, and respectful, addressing the presiding officer and the minister with deference. The tone is conciliatory and supportive, praising the minister's presentation as "very exciting."

The rhetorical style is highly analytical and explanatory, maintaining a formal and educational tone. The speaker first provides a fact-based introduction, offering scientific explanations regarding atmospheric phenomena, and subsequently directs the question to the presenter. The appeal is purely logical and data-driven, completely avoiding emotional addresses.

The language used is formal and polite, addressing the chairperson and the rapporteur respectfully. The style is direct and interrogative, focusing on the political emphasis of a specific, health-related viewpoint within the discussion.

The rhetorical style is formal and courteous, employing respectful forms of address when speaking to the Chair of the session and the Prime Minister. The tone is inquisitive and solution-oriented, with thanks offered in advance for the presentation.

The style is formal and concerned, starting with an address to the director and the chairman of the culture committee and expressing concern about inequality. The argumentation is logical, based on the analogy between healthcare and education and raising the question of the transferability of the political solution.