By Plenary Sessions: Eero Merilind

The speaking style is extremely formal and respectful, utilizing forms of address directed at the Chairman of the Session and the Minister. The tone is direct and inquisitive, focusing on a specific political detail without emotional or narrative elements.

The speaking style is formal and structured, employing both logical arguments (statistics, reducing the Health Insurance Fund deficit) and emotional emphasis on people’s lives and dignified aging for persuasion. The tone is optimistic regarding the future, especially in connection with the "Estonia 2035" goals, but strongly stresses the necessity of tackling health inequality. The speaker uses a rhetorical question (investment vs. expenditure) to frame their core position.

The address is formal and polite, using honorific titles when addressing both the Speaker of the Riigikogu and the Minister. The tone is inquisitive and constructive, presenting a direct question to obtain clear and logical information regarding the implementation of the draft law.

Translation is missing: Retooriline stiil on formaalne, korduv ja kaitsval toonil, eriti seoses korduvate küsimustega pedofiilia legaliseerimise kohta ("Tuletan veel kord meelde..."). Kõneleja tugineb loogilistele argumentidele, viidates juriidilistele sätetele, komisjoni konsensusele ja välisele eksperthinnangule, esinedes peamiselt menetluse selgitajana.

The style is predominantly formal and procedural, especially during the presentation of the commission's report, where thorough procedural details are used. The tone is informative and, at times, defensively explanatory, answering questions by detailing what was discussed within the commission. Both references to data and a slight personal address are utilized ("Dear sleepless comrades!").

The rhetorical style is formal and direct, employing questions to challenge the presenter's understanding and highlight inaccuracies. The tone is critical and analytical, expressing doubt regarding the depth of the presenter's knowledge ("It seems to me that you didn't quite grasp the details").

The rhetorical style is formal, objective, and logical, particularly in the second speech, where three clearly structured positive arguments are presented in support of the bill. The tone focuses on facts, efficiency, and procedures, remaining analytical rather than emotional. The first speech is purely procedural and report-based.

The rhetorical style is formal, neutral, and concise, focusing on the factual reporting of events that took place in the Social Committee. Clear and simple language is employed, avoiding emotional appeals, to provide a brief overview of procedural decisions and voting results.

The style is formal, informative, and procedural, centering on the detailed presentation of the bill's content and the committee discussions. Although the overall tone remains neutral and logical, the speaker expresses a strong personal moral stance on the issue of pedophiles working with children, utilizing repeated personal recommendations aimed at employers.

The first speaker uses a formal, procedural, and informative style, neutrally presenting the commission's decisions and the minister's explanations. The second speaker is direct, expresses emotional support ("truly pleased"), and subsequently poses a specific legal question.

The style is formal, direct, and interrogative, addressing the prime ministerial candidate with a question demanding a solution. The approach is logical and policy-based, avoiding emotional arguments and focusing on the factual problem (the budgetary concern).

The style is formal and directly interrogative, respectfully addressing the Chancellor of Justice. Logical, alternative-presenting questions are employed to compel the opposing party to put forward a concrete political proposal. The tone is solution-oriented.

The rhetorical style is highly formal and courteous, employing salutations such as "Esteemed Chairman of the Session" and "Dear Prime Minister." The tone is conciliatory and focuses purely on logical clarification, while thanking the Prime Minister for the preceding explanations.

The rhetorical style is formal, logical, and persuasive, relying heavily on scientific data, public health statistics, and international examples. The tone expresses concern regarding the obesity epidemic, but the presentation remains factual and focuses on long-term health implications, requesting support for the bill from members of the Riigikogu.

The language used is formal and respectful, addressing both the chair of the session and the minister. The style is appreciative ("a very engaging presentation") and focuses on logically framing a question concerning the ease of implementing the law. The tone is constructive and supportive.

The rhetorical style is formal, explanatory, and logic-based, prioritizing scientific facts over emotional appeals. The speaker often adopts an educational role, explaining complex phenomena before posing a political question. The tone is analytical and inquisitive, addressing the presenter politely.

The speaking style is extremely polite and respectful, addressing both the Prime Minister and the presenter with appreciation and thanking them for their reports. The tone is inquisitive and constructive, focusing on logical and political solutions (specifically, how to invest) and the affirmation of key positions.

The tone is concerned ("I am a little worried") and analytical, focusing on the political framing of the issue. The style is formal and respectful, addressing the Director/Chair and the Committee Chairman. The speaker uses a logical comparison (the analogy of initial grants/seed funding) to propose a political solution.