By Months: Valdo Randpere

The address is formal and respectful, directed toward the Speaker of the Riigikogu and the rapporteur ("Respected Speaker of the Riigikogu! Dear rapporteur!"). The rhetoric is logical and interrogative, focusing on the political framing of the problem and the search for solutions without resorting to emotional appeals.

The style is formal, inquisitive, and detailed, addressing the respected presiding officer and the rapporteur. The speaker relies on logical arguments, citing laws and historical data. The conclusion presents a moderate but direct appeal to support a national necessity (defense spending): "Will the Bank of Estonia also step in to help?"

The rhetorical style is formal and procedural in commission reports, but becomes critical and at times provocative during debates. Strong metaphors are employed to criticize state over-regulation ("nanny state," "blank document") alongside historical comparisons (the Soviet-era anti-alcohol campaign). The discourse includes both logical arguments (such as avoiding bureaucracy) and sharp, value-based stances, including an ironic comment regarding victims of fraud ("fools should indeed be separated from their money").

The rhetorical style is confident and straightforward, incorporating both humor and sarcasm, especially when commenting on opponents' misunderstandings (e.g., "sad news" for those who want to cause trouble on a plane). It favors logical explanation and the presentation of facts, but becomes sharp when criticizing ideological approaches (Helle-Moonika) or factual errors (Rain Epler).

The rhetorical style is confident and at times confrontational, criticizing opponents for using incorrect information or delivering repetitive statements that stray from the discussion topic. Logical arguments and historical parallels (the 2012 law amendment) are employed to substantiate one's positions. The tone is formal but incorporates sarcasm when describing the intimidation of opponents (e.g., "a beggar's sack and a stick in hand").

The style is predominantly confrontational and corrective, using historical facts and newspaper headlines to support the arguments. The speaker employs direct attacks against opponents (e.g., Mart Helme for distorting the past) and even gets personal (asking Helle-Moonika Helm to stop interrupting). The tone is formal, yet emotionally charged and sharp.

The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, yet simultaneously enthusiastic and laudatory, particularly concerning the quality of the draft being presented, often employing powerful superlatives. It relies heavily on logical arguments, carefully balancing the introduction of procedural details (committee debates, minutes) with fundamental legal principles (such as the inevitability of sanction).

The speaker's style is confrontational and accusatory, addressing the opponent directly and using strong terms (e.g., "whines") to characterize the opposing party. The emphasis is placed on historical responsibility and logical appeal, recalling the opponents' earlier compliance and calling into question their current judgment.