By Plenary Sessions: Mati Raidma

The language used is formal, supportive, and persuasive, while simultaneously emphasizing the time-criticality and urgency of the topic. The appeal is primarily logical and procedural, focusing on establishing legal clarity and solidifying roles. Inclusive rhetoric is employed, stressing that ensuring crisis resilience is a role for the Riigikogu (Parliament), the public sector, and every member of society.

The style is formal and respectful, including thanks for the presentation and addressing the "esteemed chairman." At the same time, the tone is questioning and demanding due to the necessity of quickly clarifying the draft law before the October 10 deadline. The emphasis is on logical and procedural argumentation, rather than emotional appeals.

The style is formal, comprehensive, and procedural, fitting for a rapporteur of the steering committee. Logical appeals are employed, and there is an emphasis on systematicity and clarity, achieved by reiterating key points ("repetition is the mother of wisdom"). The tone is businesslike and persuasive, highlighting the time-sensitive nature of the draft legislation and urging colleagues to contribute.

The rhetorical style is formal, professional, and institutional, beginning with a polite expression of thanks to the Minister for their presentation. The tone is quite demanding and urgent, stressing the need for strategic innovations and eagerly anticipating the debates.

The style is corrective and factual, stressing the necessity of strict adherence to protocol. The speaker employs a logical appeal, contrasting the proper institutional route with mere political maneuvering. The tone remains neutral, yet it is critical of the current trajectory of the debate.

The tone of the speech is serious, pragmatic, and urgent, stressing that peaceful times are over and the security environment demands decisiveness. The appeal is primarily logical and fact-based, relying on numerous statistical data regarding the scale of defense spending. Formal language is employed to underscore the necessity of national duty and societal contribution.

The style is formal, serious, and urgent, emphasizing tragic history and contemporary injustice. The speaker employs both emotional appeals (harsh fate, the destruction of a people) and a logical call to action (supporting the Riigikogu statement and appealing to the international community). He uses a historical narrative to justify the contemporary political stance.

The style is dedicated, patriotic, and urgent, emphasizing accountability and the invaluable worth of freedom. Both emotional (confidence, independence, the heroic War of Independence) and logical arguments are used, supporting the claims with specific financial indicators and percentages. The overall tone is formal and structured, focusing on four clearly distinct topics.

The language used is extremely formal, neutral, and procedural, focusing on the fact-based description of the commission's work and decisions. Emphasis is placed on logical justifications, such as cost-effectiveness and the actual expense of operations, while avoiding emotional appeals. The speaker adopts the role of a rapporteur, describing the difficult decisions the commission has been compelled to adopt.

The rhetorical style is formal and procedural, focusing on the neutral conveyance of the commission’s discussion and decisions. The speaker relies on logical arguments and quotes the responses of ministry experts, maintaining a calm and defensive tone when answering. In repeated answers to late questioners, he emphasizes that the answer has already been provided, which suggests a desire to be precise and avoid repetition.

The style is extremely brief, straightforward, and procedural. The speaker uses an apologetic and explanatory tone ("By mistake," "Technical malfunction") and expresses courtesy ("Thank you").

The style is formal and respectful, deferentially addressing the Director and the Minister and thanking them for the report. At the same time, the tone is anxious and sharp, describing the security situation as "very weak" and the actions of the adversaries as "disorderly conduct," balancing courtesy with the substantive urgency of the matter.